PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE PENNINES TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB COMMITTEE
DATE: 24 SEPTEMBER 2008
______
Recommendation Application Id. Code ______
08/D51053 Grant Consent subject to conditions MOUNT GREEN FILLING STATION, HALIFAX ROAD, ROCHDALE, OL12 9QD
08/D51054 Grant Permission subject to conditions MOUNT GREEN FILLING STATION, HALIFAX ROAD, ROCHDALE, OL12 9QD
08/D51094 Grant Permission subject to conditions SUN CHEMICALS LTD, ELIZABETHAN WAY, ROCHDALE, OL16 4LE
08/D51095 Grant Permission subject to conditions SUN CHEMICALS LTD, ELIZABETHAN WAY, ROCHDALE, OL16 4LE
08/D51121 Grant Permission subject to conditions SUN CHEMICALS LTD, ELIZABETHAN WAY, ROCHDALE, OL16 4LE
08/D51134 Grant Permission subject to conditions CLOUGH BANK, CLOUGH ROAD, LITTLEBOROUGH, OL15 9PA
08/D51166 Grant Permission subject to conditions CLEGG HALL, CLEGG HALL ROAD, LITTLEBOROUGH, OL15 0AA
08/D51167 Grant Consent subject to condition CLEGG HALL, CLEGG HALL ROAD, LITTLEBOROUGH, OL15 0AA
08/D51168 Refuse Permission 153, RAMSDEN ROAD, ROCHDALE, OL12 9NX
08/D51237 Refuse Permission 38, VICTORIA STREET, LITTLEBOROUGH, OL15 9DB
List A Page - 1 -
Applicat ion Number Application Type Ward 08/D51053 Full Planning Wardle
ERECTION OF 2 JET WASH BAYS - RESUBMISSION D50650
MOUNT GREEN FILLING STATION, HALIFAX ROAD, ROCHDALE, OL12 9QD
For:- JAMES HALL & CO LTD Received 30-Jun-2008
RECOMMENDATION Grant Consent subject to conditions
Conditions: 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The jet wash facility shall not be open for trade or business outside the hours of 8.00 to 21:00 Monday to Sunday inclusive.
Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. In order to safeguard the amenities of the area and to prevent nuisance arising.
______
Reason for Recommendation: The proposed jet wash facility at Mount Green Filling Station would be ancillary and complimentary to the existing use on the site and the facility would not cause further detriment to the amenities of neighbouring residents. The proposed development complies with the requirements of Policies BE/2 ‘Design Criteria for New Development’ and A/9 ‘New Development Access for General Traffic’ in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.
Report
Site: The site relates to the former Mount Green Filling Station site on Halifax Road. The site has recently been re-developed as a petrol filling station and retail store operated by the “Spar” supermarket group. Permission has also been granted for the erection of 6 dwellings to the western side of the new retail store but these have not yet been developed.
Proposal: This application is for the erection of one jet wash bay at the north eastern corner of the site. The jet wash bay will be formed from an aluminium List A Page - 2 - structure with clear Perspex wall panels. The bay is about 7m by 5m with 2.6m high side panels.
A vacuum bay and an air/water bay will be provided on either side of the jet wash bay. The existing wall to the southern edge of the forecourt will be retained. There are designated parking spaces for persons waiting to use the jet wash/vacuum/air and water bays on the eastern boundary.
Background Policy: BE/2 - Design Criteria for New Development S/8 - Retail Developments Outside Town, District and Local Centres EM/3 - Noise and New Development
Site History: 08/D50650 Erection of two jet washes – Withdrawn.
07/D50044 Erection of car wash and jet wash – Refused.
06/D47004 Erection of 6 dwellings, alterations to existing petrol filling station and erection of new retail store – Approved.
91/D26478 Extension of existing car showroom provision of new petrol filling station and body shop and used car sales area parking – Granted.
81/D13160 Alterations to petrol filling station forecourt layout and toilet block extension – Granted.
81/D12455 Vehicle maintenance workshop and servicing bay – Granted.
Consultation Responses: Highways Service – the highways officer is satisfied with the revised layout which includes one jet wash bay, a vac bay, an air/water point and 3 additional parking spaces in the positions shown on the amended plans received 22 August 2008.
Chief Environmental Health Officer - no objections subject to the hours being restricted to 8.00am to 9.00pm.
Publicity Responses: A letter of notification was sent to surrounding neighbours and a site notice was posted. Three letters of objection have been received which can be summarised as follows:
1. There are several properties immediately to the rear of the petrol filling station. There is already considerable disturbance from the business during operation including car doors banging, engine noise, people talking and shouting etc. that travels straight into the bedrooms positioned at the rear of these properties. The noise disturbance is so excessive it is not possible for some residents of these properties to occupy the rear bedrooms. List A Page - 3 -
2. There are bright lights on the petrol filling station forecourt which shine into the gardens and rear windows of properties located to the rear from early in the morning until very late in the evening. 3. The erection of jet wash bays would escalate the level of disturbance already suffered and further damage the quality of local residents lives. 4. There are concerns of how the water spray and run off water would be controlled.
Views of Officer: The proposed development will be assessed against the provisions of policies BE/2 ‘Design Criteria for New Development’ and A/9 ‘New Development Access for General Traffic’ in the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.
The applicants have previously applied for a drive through car wash and jet wash on the site (reference 07/D50044) which was refused for reasons of highway safety, loss of cycle store provision and lack of information to assess the potential impact on neighbouring residents. Following this, a second application was submitted for two jet wash bays (reference 08/D50650) but was withdrawn pending further information on noise levels. This current application is seeking consent for the installation of a single jet wash bay on the site after reducing the scheme from two jet wash bays to overcome highway safety concerns.
In my opinion, the principle of siting a jet wash bay on this site is acceptable. The facility would be ancillary and complimentary to the existing use on the site, providing car washing facilities for drivers who already visit for fuel and convenience purposes. Therefore few additional vehicles would be drawn to the site. However, due to the close proximity of neighbouring residents, it is necessary to consider the impact of the proposed development on their residential amenities.
I note that the primary concern of residents is the level of noise disturbance they currently experience from the petrol filling station and how the jet wash facility may exacerbate this. In order to respond to these concerns, the applicants have submitted a detailed noise survey. This report concludes that the residual noise from the jet wash equipment is likely to be less than the typical day time background noise level already experienced by the adjacent houses. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has considered this report and agrees that the proposed jet wash facility is not likely to create additional noise nuisance for neighbouring residents and has no objections to the proposal. If the proposal is approved however, a condition restricting the hours should be imposed.
The Environmental Health Officer also queried whether any additional illumination is proposed for the jet wash bays. There are no details of proposed lighting included with the application and the agent has confirmed that the existing forecourt lighting would be sufficient to serve the proposed jet wash facility.
On this basis, based on the information submitted, I do not consider the proposed development would cause any further detriment to the amenities of List A Page - 4 - neighbouring residents over and above their current situation by reason of noise disturbance or light pollution.
With regards to highway safety on the site, the amended plans reducing the number of jet wash bays from two to one and the provision of additional parking bays has overcome the Highways Officers concerns. The proposed development now complies with the requirements of Policy A/9 of the adopted UDP.
Finally, I acknowledge the concerns of the neighbouring residents regarding water run off and spray. The jet wash bay would be enclosed by 2.6m high panels which will control the majority of the spray. I do not consider any additional spray that escapes this would have an impact on residents positioned over 15m away. The issue of drainage has been addressed by the applicants and I am satisfied that this will be adequately controlled and there will not be an impact on the residents to the rear.
In summary, I am satisfied that the applicants have adequately demonstrated there would be no additional impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents through noise disturbance, light pollution or surface water run off. The revised proposal overcomes the initial highway safety concerns and is acceptable in all other respects. The proposal satisfies the requirements of policies BE/2 and A/9 of the adopted UDP and is recommended for approval.
Delegation Scheme: The Committee has delegated powers to determine the application either way on reasonable planning grounds.
______
List A Page - 5 -
Application Number Application Type Ward 08/D51054 Full Planning Wardle
VARIATION OF CONDITION 15 OF PLANNING PERMISSION D47004 TO ALLOW OPENING HOURS BETWEEN 06.00 HOURS AND 23.00 HOURS ON ANY DAY - RESUBMISSION D50503
MOUNT GREEN FILLING STATION, HALIFAX ROAD, ROCHDALE, OL12 9QD
For:- JAMES HALL & CO LTD Received 30-Jun-2008
RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions
Conditions: 1. The retail building shall not be open for trade or business before 06.00 hours nor after 23.00 hours on any day.
Reasons: 1. In order to safeguard the amenities of the area and to prevent nuisance arising. ______
Reason for Recommendation: The proposed extension of opening hours by one hour each morning will not unduly harm the amenities of neighbouring residents by reason of noise and disturbance and is acceptable in all other respects. The proposal complies with the requirements of Policies EM/3 ‘Noise and New Development’, S/8 Retail Development Outside Town Centres’ and BE/2 ‘Design Criteria for New Development’ in the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Report This application was brought before the last meeting of this committee on 27 August when the application was deferred to allow further discussions to take place between planning officers and the applicants about a) the brightness of the external lighting of the site and b) the applicant’s offer made at the last meeting to alter the existing boundary fence to improve its screening effectiveness. My report has been amended slightly to reflect the result of these discussions.
Site: The site relates to the former Mount Green Filling Station site on Halifax Road. The site has recently been re-developed as a petrol filling station and retail store operated by the “Spar” supermarket group. Permission has also been granted for the erection of 6 dwellings to the western side of the new retail store but these have not yet been developed.
List A Page - 6 -
Proposal: This application is a resubmission for the variation of Condition 15 of Planning Permission D47004 to allow the petrol filling and service station with associated retail store to be open between the hours of 0600 and 2300 on any day. This will allow the filling station to be open an hour earlier in the morning than is currently permitted by Condition 15.
Policy Background: BE/2 - Design Criteria for New Development S/8 - Retail Developments Outside Town, District and Local Centres EM/3 - Noise and New Development
Site History: 08/D50503 Variation of Condition 15 of planning permission D47004 to allow opening hours between 06.00hrs and 23.00hrs on any day - Refused.
08/D50504 Variation of Condition 15 of Planning Permission D47004 to allow restricted opening overnight – Refused.
07/D49531 Relocation of ATM – Approved - Sept 2007.
07/A5586 2 Internally illuminated fascia signs – Grant Permission – May 2007
06/D47004 Erection of 6 dwellings, alterations to existing petrol filling station and erection of new retail store – Approved.
Consultation Responses: Highways Service:- no objections.
Chief Environmental Health Officer:- no objections.
Publicity Responses: A letter of notification was sent to surrounding neighbours and a site notice was posted. Three letters of objection have been received which can be summarised as follows:
1. There are several properties immediately to the rear of the petrol filling station. There is already considerable disturbance from the business during operation including car doors banging, engine noise, people talking and shouting etc. that travels straight into the bedrooms positioned at the rear of these properties. The noise disturbance is so excessive it is not possible for some residents of these properties to occupy the rear bedrooms. 2. The properties located on Halifax Road directly opposite the petrol station are also subject to unacceptable levels of noise from car engines and loud music on the forecourt and cars exiting the site at fast speeds etc. In addition, the staff using the public address system can be heard from within the houses. List A Page - 7 -
3. The level of disturbance residents are already suffering is completely unacceptable. If the business was to operate earlier in the morning and/or throughout the whole night it would extend the amount of noise pollution and disturbance that neighbouring residents have to endure and cause further disruption to the local environment. The resulting levels of disturbance would be unbearable. 4. The erection of a very tall wooden fence to the rear of 51 Old Road has not nullified any of the noise problems experienced. 5. Teenagers and youths are attracted to the petrol station and cause disturbance. 6. There are bright lights on the petrol filling station forecourt which shine into the gardens and rear windows of properties located to the rear from early in the morning until 11pm. 7. The fence to the rear of the filling station is not adequate and allows the illumination from car headlamps through the gaps and into the bedroom windows of the properties to the rear.
Views of Officer: This application is a resubmission for the extension of the opening hours of the retail store. The initial planning approval (D47004) was subject to a condition that restricted the opening hours of the retail store for trade or business to between 07.00hrs and 23.00hrs. The subsequent application to allow the retail store to be open one hour earlier at 06.00 hours was refused at Pennines Planning Sub-Committee on the basis that the proposal would be likely to give rise to an unacceptable degree of noise and disturbance and light pollution to the nearest neighbouring residents, particularly at Nos. 51 & 53 and 61 & 63 Old Road at this sensitive time of the day.
This application has now been resubmitted with a full and detailed noise survey carried out by ‘Sound Advice’. This survey concluded that;
‘The proposal to vary the hours of opening to allow full operation between 6am and 7am would be most unlikely to cause any additional noise problems on the evidence of the already existing noise levels in the early morning from traffic on Halifax Road.’
After considering the submitted information, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer is satisfied with the report findings that the extension of opening hours by one hour in the morning would not give rise to an unacceptable degree of noise and disturbance over and above existing levels and has subsequently withdrawn her objections to the proposal. On this basis, it is accepted that the supporting documentation adequately overcomes the previous reason for refusal.
I acknowledge the concerns of the neighbouring properties and sympathise with them over the disturbances they have endured during the course of this development. However, this application only seeks to extend the opening hours by one hour each morning, so the shop would be open at 6am rather than 7am. I note the delivery times and forecourt lighting are still strictly controlled by conditions imposed on the original application which would minimise potential disturbance and when considered alongside the noise List A Page - 8 - surveys submitted, I am of the opinion that the additional hour of opening in the morning would not have a significantly greater impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties. Moreover, from the comments submitted it would appear that the greater noise nuisance and disturbance is experienced late in the evenings from activity on the forecourt and the congregation of youths. The submitted noise survey supports this assertion and the applicants have taken note of this and have no intentions to reapply for overnight opening at this time.
Regarding the residents’ complaint about the brightness of the lighting on the site; this matter has been discussed in more detail with the applicant’s agent since the last committee meeting. The external lighting on the site consists of four freestanding, 4-m high, lighting poles and the lighting that shines down from the underside of the canopy over the fuel sales area. Some light is also cast out onto the forecourt from the internal lighting within the retail building itself. Three of the freestanding lighting poles stand alongside the boundary shared with the residential properties along Old Road and each bears two lights angled down to face onto the site.
I have visited the site late at night since the last meeting to assess the severity of the lighting problem for myself and I tend to share the neighbours’ concerns about the overall brightness of the lighting of the site. In my view, it is the three freestanding lighting poles nearest the neighbour’s properties that are mainly to blame for the bright light experienced from the neighbours’ homes, as these create a bright glaring effect.
These lights were approved under the previous planning permission D47004 although their operation is restricted to between 6.30am and 11.30pm. The applicants have since confirmed that they are prepared to remove one lighting unit from two of the freestanding poles next to the boundary fencing. The lighting pole nearest the retail building is to retain both lights however, to make sure that that ‘cashpoint’ machine is still safely illuminated, (this to follow the advice of the Police).
The applicants have also now agreed to fix extra timber battens to the existing timber boundary fence to make it fully close-boarded. This was a requirement of one of the conditions imposed on the original planning permission D47004. This would avoid the sweep of car headlights shining through the existing narrow gaps in the fence towards the neighbours’ homes and it should also have a further minor acoustic screening benefit for the neighbours.
The current restriction over the hours of operation of the lighting is to remain unchanged as a result of this application, i.e. the lights will still only be allowed to be illuminated between 6.30am and 11.30pm, (and not from 6am when the retail shop would be allowed to open as a result of this proposal).
In summary, I consider the proposal to open the shop/garage by one hour earlier each morning to be acceptable, as it would have minimal further impact on the amenities of surrounding residents. The fencing is to be altered to improve its screening effect for both noise and car headlights and the List A Page - 9 - applicants have agreed to remove parts of some of the lights to reduce their overall brightness.
In all of these circumstances, I therefore recommend that this application should now be approved.
Delegation Scheme: The Committee has delegated powers to determine the application either way on reasonable planning grounds.
______
Application Number Application Type Ward 08/D51094 Full Planning Milnrow and Newhey
ERECTION OF STORAGE BUILDING FOR EXISTING PALLETS
SUN CHEMICALS LTD, ELIZABETHAN WAY, ROCHDALE, OL16 4LE
For:- SUN CHEMICAL LTD Received 08-Jul-2008
RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions
Conditions: 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The materials used shall be as stated on the approved plans in terms of type, colour, texture and scale unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 3. The emergency vehicular access into the site from Ellenroad Street, as shown on drawing No.RO08/4654/03, shall only be used by emergency vehicles in times of any emergency arising on the site and shall not be used by delivery vehicles or any other type of vehicles without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 4. There shall be no movement of materials, containers, plant equipment or vehicles within, or to and from the building before 07.00 hours nor after 22.00 hours on any day.
Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity. 3. In the interests of road safety and residential amenity List A Page - 10 -
4. In the interests of safeguarding residential amenities.
______
Reason for Recommendation: The proposed development would be compatible with the existing buildings and the current industrial use of the application site. The proposed development would not cause any further detriment to the amenities of nearby residents. The proposal is in compliance with Policy BE/2, A/9 and EM/3 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Report
Site: The application site is Sun Chemicals, an industrial site located off Elizabethan Way in Milnrow. The site is within the defined urban area. The access and egress to the site for vehicles and production staff is from Elizabethan Way. The site currently contains the following structures:
§ A 2003 sq m single storey brick clad reception, laboratory and office building § A 2000 sq m high bay warehouse § A 2895 sq m steel framed production building § A 1168 sq m steel framed production building § Two concrete bunds and four bays for tankers to reverse and load the storage hopper tanks.
The site is bounded by Elizabethan Way to the north east. There is a car park and Ellen Road Steam Mill on the northern boundary. There are residential terraced properties positioned approximately 18m away from the south eastern boundary of the site fronting Bentgate Street. Beyond the western boundary of the site is open land and the River Beal.
Proposal: This application is for the erection of a storage building to house existing pallets. The building would be positioned towards the south western corner of the site on a concrete storage yard area approximately 30m from the rear of the properties on Bentgate Street.
The proposed building would measure 15.2m wide and 30.4m deep providing 462.08 sq m of floorspace. The building would measure 4.8m to the eaves and 7.2m to the ridge. The building would be a tented structure with a steel frame and rigid sides. The panelling would be finished in white.
Site History: 08/D51095 Alteration to landscaped mounds to form vehicle parking area – awaiting determination at Committee.
List A Page - 11 -
08/D51121 Construction of storage area for barrels – awaiting determination at Committee.
05/D45383 Installation of 6 tanks with existing concrete bund – Approved subject to conditions.
03/D42727 Increase in height of part of industrial building, construction of external bunded tank area and enlarged vehicle service yard with associated demolition, mounding, landscaping and the provision of an acoustic fence – Approved subject to conditions.
00/D37728 Extension to production building and resin store, movement of fire fighting equipment and tank, hardstanding storage facility, additional solvent storage tanks in existing bund – Approved subject to conditions.
00/D37727 Use of land as extension to storage yard / materials, handling area, demolition of existing dwellings, closure of part of Ellenroad Street, new landscaping and new service roads within the street – Grant permission subject to conditions.
99/D36990 Erection of extension to production building, formation of hardstanding storage facility, and installation of additional solvent storage tanks and resin stored – Refused.
90/D26026 Erection of 2 new warehouses and solvent tank farm – Approved subject to conditions.
89/D24461 Change of use of land to form vehicle park and turning area – Approved subject to conditions.
89/D23297 New warehouse and extension to existing industrial and warehouse buildings – Approved subject to conditions.
85/D17742 Industrial unit and warehouse with ancillary offices and laboratory – Approved subject to conditions.
84/D16995 Demolition of mill & chimney, retention of engine house and warehouse building. Erection of industrial storage and warehouse buildings with ancillary offices and laboratory – Approved subject to conditions 82/D13335 Outline application for industrial development - Approved.
81/D12817 Outline application – warehousing and light industrial development - Approved.
Publicity Responses: A publicity letter was sent to neighbouring residents and a site notice was posted – three objections have been received from residents of Bentgate Street which can be summarised as follows:
List A Page - 12 -
1. There is considerable noise from the site and it has increased over the past few years. This is particularly disruptive in the early morning and late evening. 2. Lorries have started using Bentgate Street to access the farm at the end of this road to park overnight. This is causing highway and pedestrian safety concerns and also adds to the noise disturbance. 3. Further works on this site will exacerbate the noise and inconvenience for local residents. 4. The height of the proposed building would significantly reduce sunlight and lighting into the rear gardens and properties of Bentgate Street. 5. The properties would be devalued as a result of further development on the site. 6. Storing pallets in the building would increase the risk of fire from vandals.
I note the applicants carried out some pre-application consultation with neighbouring residents. The results of this consultation were submitted with the application. The feedback was predominantly negative for similar reasons as outlined above.
Consultation Responses: Head of Highways and Engineering – there were initial concerns regarding manoeuvrability of articulated vehicles within the site. These concerns have now been addressed and there are no objections to the scheme.
Environmental Health – no objections.
Views of Officer: This application has been assessed against the provisions of Policies BE/2 ‘Design Criteria for New Development’, EM/3 ‘Noise and New Development’ and A/9 ‘New Development – Access for General Traffic’ in the adopted UDP.
The application site is within the defined urban area and has long been established as an industrial site. Previously operating as Coates Lorrilleux, the site is now under the ownership of Sun Chemicals. There is an extensive planning history to the site that details how it has expanded and developed over the years and the various conditions that have been imposed to control and manage the development.
This application is for the erection of a steel frame building with rigid steel wall panels. The proposed building would be erected on an existing concrete storage area within the boundaries of the site and would provide an enclosed storage area for pallets that are currently stacked in the open.
The principle of the storage building is acceptable as it is ancillary to the business and industrial use of the site. In terms of size, scale and design, the proposed building is significantly smaller than the existing buildings on the site and is an appropriate style and design that is in-keeping with the industrial nature of the site. In terms of the visual impact of the building, I note the structure would be visible from the first floor rear windows of the properties on Bentgate Street as they directly overlook the site. However, as the building List A Page - 13 - would replace the outdoor storage area and conceal the existing stacked pallets, it could be argued that this would tidy up and improve the general appearance of this part of the site and thus improve the outlook from the rear of these properties for residents. The building would also be partially visible from Bentgate Street; however I consider the existing landscaping provides adequate screening of the site so the impact on the street scene would be minimal.
Due to the close proximity of neighbouring residents, it is necessary to consider the impact of the proposed development on their residential amenity. As the site is an active industrial site a certain level of noise disturbance is expected and I note the concerns of neighbouring residents regarding the effect of existing noise levels on their lives and the worry that further works on the site would exacerbate this problem. However, I do not consider the proposed development would lead to an increase in noise disturbance for neighbouring residents. The structure would be positioned over 30m away from the rear boundaries of residential properties on Bentgate Street and there is sufficient screening along the boundary of the site that was undertaken as part of a previous scheme. I also note that the proposed building would be a greater distance away from the properties on Bentgate Street than the relationship between other existing industrial buildings on the site and neighbouring residential properties. Further to this, I consider the proposal to enclose the existing pallet storage area may actually reduce the levels of noise and light pollution as vehicle manoeuvring would take place inside the structure rather than outside. This could arguably improve the residential amenities of neighbouring residents from the current situation. However, to further protect the amenities of neighbouring residents from noise and light pollution, I suggest a condition limiting the hours of working and vehicle movement is imposed. I note that having considered the proposals, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has no objections to the development.
With regards to highways safety, the Head of Highways and Engineering initially had concerns regarding manoeuvrability within the site. However, following detailed analysis of the layout plans it is evident that Articulated Vehicles can manoeuvre around the site safely. The proposed development is therefore acceptable and there are no objections to the scheme.
In respect of the other concerns raised by the objectors, for clarity I will assess these individually. The impact on property values is not a planning matter and therefore has not been taken into consideration in the determination of this application. With regards to fire risk, I consider that storing the pallets in a secure building would reduce the risk of vandalism so on this basis the building is preferable to the current open air storage arrangement. Further to this, I do not consider that the perception by some of the local residents that the proposal might cause a further fire hazard would be a sustainable reason to refuse this application. In considering the potential loss of sunlight to the rear of properties on Bentgate Street, due to the positioning of the building 30m to the north of the properties on Bentgate Street, I do not perceive any overshadowing for the occupiers of these properties as the sun travels from east to west. Finally, regarding the alleged List A Page - 14 - extra traffic that is utilising Bentgate Street to access a farm at the end of the road and the problems that this would cause the local area, it should be noted the main access to the site is from Elizabethan Way and the recent applications do not propose to change this situation. This is therefore not relevant to the consideration of this application.
In summary, the principle of the proposed development at Sun Chemicals industrial site is acceptable and would help improve the visual amenity of this area of the site. In my opinion, there would be no further detriment to the amenities of neighbouring residents through noise, visual amenity, overshadowing or highways safety. The proposal satisfies the requirements of policies BE/2, A/9 and EM/3 of the adopted UDP and is recommended for approval.
Delegation Scheme: The Committee have delegated powers to determine the application either way on reasonable planning grounds.
______
Application Number Application Type Ward 08/D51095 Full Planning Milnrow and Newhey
ALTERATION TO LANDSCAPED MOUNDS TO FORM VEHICLE PARKING AREA
SUN CHEMICALS LTD, ELIZABETHAN WAY, ROCHDALE, OL16 4LE
For:- SUN CHEMICAL LTD Received 08-Jul-2008
RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions
Conditions: 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The emergency vehicular access into the site from Ellenroad Street, as shown on drawing No.RO08/4655/03, shall only be used by emergency vehicles in times of any emergency arising on the site and shall not be used by delivery vehicles or any other type of vehicles without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 3. There shall be no movement of materials, containers, plant equipment or vehicles within, or to and from the area of the service yard/storage area, as shown cross-hatched on drawing No.R02/2880/05D, before 07.00 hours nor after 22.00 hours on any day.
List A Page - 15 -
4. A landscaping scheme for the area of the site alongside its southern and western boundaries in the area hatched black on the plan marked '08/D51095 Sun Chemicals Landscape Area', shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the type, species, siting and planting distances of the trees and shrubs. The scheme of planting, as approved, shall be carried out during the first planting season following the construction of the mounds and the acoustic fencing and the areas that are landscaped shall be retained as landscaped areas thereafter. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within three years of planting, shall be replaced by trees of a similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.
Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. In the interests of road safety and residential amenity 3. In the interests of safeguarding residential amenities. 4. In order to achieve a satisfactory level of landscaping in the interests of the amenity of the area. ______
Reason for Recommendation: The proposed development would satisfy the requirements of policies BE/2 ‘Design Criteria and New Development’ and A/9 ‘New Development – Access for General Traffic’ of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and is acceptable in all other respects.
Report
Site: The application site is Sun Chemicals, an industrial site located off Elizabethan Way in Milnrow. The site is within the defined urban area. The access and egress to the site for vehicles and production staff is from Elizabethan Way. The site currently contains the following structures:
§ A 2003 sq m single storey brick clad reception, laboratory and office building § A 2000 sq m high bay warehouse § A 2895 sq m steel framed production building § A 1168 sq m steel framed production building § Two concrete bunds and four bays for tankers to reverse and load the storage hopper tanks.
The site is bounded by Elizabethan Way to the north east. There is a car park and Ellen Road Steam Mill on the northern boundary. There are residential terraced properties positioned approximately 18m away from the south eastern boundary of the site fronting Bentgate Street. Beyond the western boundary of the site is open land and the River Beal. List A Page - 16 -
Proposal: This application is for alterations to the existing landscape mounds to the south west of the site to form additional vehicle parking areas. The development involves excavating into the landscaped mound to form a hardstanding area and swing path adjacent to the existing concrete yard area.
The proposal does not result in an extension to the site and the existing site boundary and boundary treatments are unaffected by the scheme. The proposals do not alter the current access and egress arrangements. All vehicles would continue to use the site access off Elizabethan Way with only emergency vehicles utilising the Ellenroad Street entrance.
Site History: 08/D51094 Erection of storage building for existing pallets – awaiting determination at committee
08/D51121 Construction of storage area for barrels – awaiting determination at Committee
05/D45383 Installation of 6 tanks with existing concrete bund – Approved subject to conditions
03/D42727 Increase in height of part of industrial building, construction of external bunded tank area and enlarged vehicle service yard with associated demolition, mounding, landscaping and the provision of an acoustic fence – Approved subject to conditions
00/D37728 Extension to production building and resin store, movement of fire fighting equipment and tank, hardstanding storage facility, additional solvent storage tanks in existing bund – Approved subject to conditions
00/D37727 Use of land as extension to storage yard / materials, handling area, demolition of existing dwellings, closure of part of Ellenroad Street, new landscaping and new service roads within the street – Grant permission subject to conditions
99/D36990 Erection of extension to production building, formation of hardstanding storage facility, and installation of additional solvent storage tanks and resin stored – Refused.
90/D26026 Erection of 2 new warehouses and solvent tank farm – Approved subject to conditions
89/D24461 Change of use of land to form vehicle park and turning area – Approved subject to conditions
89/D23297 New warehouse and extension to existing industrial and warehouse buildings – Approved subject to conditions
List A Page - 17 -
85/D17742 Industrial unit and warehouse with ancillary offices and laboratory – Approved subject to conditions
84/D16995 Demolition of mill & chimney, retention of engine house and warehouse building. Erection of industrial storage and warehouse buildings with ancillary offices and laboratory – Approved subject to conditions
82/D13335 Outline application for industrial development - Approved.
81/D12817 Outline application – warehousing and light industrial development - Approved.
Publicity Responses: A publicity letter was sent to neighbouring residents and a site notice was posted – two objections have been received from residents of Bentgate Street which can be summarised as follows:
1. There is considerable noise from the site and it has increased over the past few years. This is particularly disruptive in the early morning and late evening. 2. Lorries have started using Bentgate Street to access the farm at the end of this road to park overnight. This is causing highway and pedestrian safety concerns and also adds to the noise disturbance. 3. Further works on this site will exacerbate the noise and inconvenience for local residents. 4. The properties would be devalued as a result of further development on the site.
I note the applicants carried out some pre-application consultation with neighbouring residents. The results of this consultation were submitted with the application. The feedback was predominantly negative for similar reasons as outlined above.
Consultation Responses: Head of Highways and Engineering - there were initial concerns regarding manoeuvrability of articulated vehicles within the site. These concerns have now been addressed and there are no objections to the scheme.
Environmental Health - hours of access/egress to the parking area should be restricted to 8.00am to 8.00pm Monday to Saturday. This would cover any concerns regarding noise disturbance.
Views of Officer: This application has been assessed against the provisions of Policies BE/2 ‘Design Criteria for New Development’, EM/3 ‘Noise and New Development’ and A/9 ‘New Development – Access for General Traffic’ in the adopted UDP.
The application site is within the defined urban area and has long been established as an industrial site. Previously operating as Coates Lorrilleux, the List A Page - 18 - site is now under the ownership of Sun Chemicals. The site has an extensive planning history which is detailed above.
The proposed development is for alterations to the landscaped mounds at the south and west of the site to form a vehicle parking area. The landscaping mounds were introduced as part of a landscaping scheme for a previous application. This development would cut into the landscaping mounds from within the site boundaries but would not undermine the general purpose of the boundary treatment.
In my opinion the principle of the proposed development is acceptable as the development would take place within the operational boundary of the site. However, due to the close proximity of neighbouring residents, it is necessary to consider the impact of the proposed development on their residential amenity. As the site is an active industrial site a certain level of noise disturbance is expected but I note the concerns of neighbouring residents regarding the effect of existing noise levels on their lives and the worry that further works on the site would exacerbate this problem.
At present, vehicles and HGVs are able to manoeuvre around this area of the site but there are no designated parking areas which draw HGVs to this end of the site. Residents are therefore already subject to some degree of noise disturbance from vehicles manoeuvring around this section as well as general background noise from the industrial site, but the important factor to consider is whether the provision of parking at this end of the site would exacerbate the noise disturbance. The proposal to cut into the grassed area at the south of the site to create a swing path would not have a direct impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents in itself as it would not undermine the landscaping mound that forms the site boundary. However, the purpose of this work is to facilitate easier movement around this section of the site as well as access and egress into the proposed parking bay.
The main concern is the noise that would be generated by HGVs accessing and egressing the parking bay, specifically engine noise and reversing alarms. Whilst the parking bay would be positioned over 20m away from the residential properties and the landscaping mounds and boundary fencing would be retained thus offering some acoustic barrier to the noise, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer still had concerns that the proposed working hours covering a sensitive time of the day (6.00am to 10.00pm) could interrupt neighbouring residents sleep. In order to overcome this, the applicants have agreed to restrict use of the parking bay to between 8.00am and 8.00pm Monday to Saturday and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer is satisfied with this. Any noise from vehicles utilising the parking bay during the proposed hours would combine with the existing background noise from the site and nearby road traffic.
With regards to visual amenity and the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area, the proposed alterations to the landscape mounds would be undertaken from within the site and would not affect the external appearance of the boundary. However, if the parking bays are to be used for HGVs it is likely that when occupying this area they would be visible from List A Page - 19 -
Bentgate Street to the south. In order to minimise the impact on the street scene, the applicants have agreed to undertake some additional landscaping work on the land immediately to the south east and south west of the site. This would improve the general appearance of the area and potentially improve the outlook for residents of Bentgate Street to the south and is considered to be a planning gain.
In respect of the other concerns raised by the objectors, the impact on property values is not a planning matter and therefore has not been taken into consideration in the determination of this application. Secondly, whilst I acknowledge the concerns of residents regarding lorries utilising Bentgate Street this is not relevant to the consideration of this application.
In summary, the principle of the proposed development at Sun Chemicals industrial site is acceptable and there would be no further detriment to the amenities of neighbouring residents through noise, visual amenity or highways safety. The proposal satisfies the requirements of policies BE/2, A/9 and EM/3 of the adopted UDP and is recommended for approval.
Delegation Scheme: The Committee have delegated powers to determine the application either way on reasonable planning grounds.
______
List A Page - 20 -
Applica tion Number Application Type Ward 08/D51121 Full Planning Milnrow and Newhey
CONSTRUCTION OF STORAGE AREA FOR BARRELS
SUN CHEMICALS LTD, ELIZABETHAN WAY, ROCHDALE, OL16 4LE
For:- SUN CHEMICAL LTD Received 14-Jul-2008
RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions
Conditions: 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application no development shall be commenced until samples or full details of materials to be used externally on the building(s) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials. Only the materials so approved shall be used, in accordance with any terms of such approval. 3. There shall be no movement of materials, containers, plant equipment or vehicles within, or to and from the area of the service yard and storage building as shown on Drawing No. RO6/4229/03 B, before 07.00 hours nor after 22.00 hours on any day.
Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity. 3. In the interests of safeguarding residential amenities. ______
Reason for Recommendation: The proposed development would satisfy the requirements of policies BE/2 ‘Design Criteria and New Development’, EM/3 ‘Noise and New Development’ and A/9 ‘New Development – Access for General Traffic’ of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and is acceptable in all other respects.
List A Page - 21 -
Report
Site: The application site is Sun Chemicals, an industrial site located off Elizabethan Way in Milnrow. The site is within the defined urban area. The access and egress to the site for vehicles and production staff is from Elizabethan Way. The site currently contains the following structures:
§ A 2003 sq m single storey brick clad reception, laboratory and office building § A 2000 sq m high bay warehouse § A 2895 sq m steel framed production building § A 1168 sq m steel framed production building § Two concrete bunds and four bays for tankers to reverse and load the storage hopper tanks.
The site is bounded by Elizabethan Way to the north east. There is a car park and Ellen Road Steam Mill on the northern boundary. There are residential terraced properties positioned approximately 18m away from the south eastern boundary of the site fronting Bentgate Street. Beyond the western boundary of the site is open land and the River Beal.
Proposal: This application is for the erection of a storage shelter for barrels that are already stored along the north eastern boundary of the site. The shelter would measure 16.1m long, 3.6m deep and 3.9 m at the rear (adjacent to the boundary) rising to 4.5m high at the front. The roof of the shelter would be extended over the void and attached to the adjacent building to create a further canopy area. In addition the 3.9m high rear panelling would be continued along the boundary for another 12.4m forming a solid fence panel/screen in front of the existing mesh paladin style fence.
The structure would be constructed from metal and would be finished in green. The structure would be fully open at the front (north west elevation). There are no openings on the rear elevation (south east). The closest part of the barrel store would be over 21m away from the properties on Sykes Street.
Site History: 08/D51094 Erection of storage building for existing pallets – awaiting determination at committee
08/D51095 Alteration to landscaped mounds to form vehicle parking area – awaiting determination at Committee
05/D45383 Installation of 6 tanks with existing concrete bund – Approved subject to conditions
03/D42727 Increase in height of part of industrial building, construction of external bunded tank area and enlarged vehicle service yard with associated demolition, mounding, landscaping and the provision of an acoustic fence – Approved subject to conditions List A Page - 22 -
00/D37728 Extension to production building and resin store, movement of fire fighting equipment and tank, hardstanding storage facility, additional solvent storage tanks in existing bund – Approved subject to conditions
00/D37727 Use of land as extension to storage yard / materials, handling area, demolition of existing dwellings, closure of part of Ellenroad Street, new landscaping and new service roads within the street – Grant permission subject to conditions
99/D36990 Erection of extension to production building, formation of hardstanding storage facility, and installation of additional solvent storage tanks and resin stored – Refused.
90/D26026 Erection of 2 new warehouses and solvent tank farm – Approved subject to conditions
89/D24461 Change of use of land to form vehicle park and turning area – Approved subject to conditions
89/D23297 New warehouse and extension to existing industrial and warehouse buildings – Approved subject to conditions
85/D17742 Industrial unit and warehouse with ancillary offices and laboratory – Approved subject to conditions
84/D16995 Demolition of mill & chimney, retention of engine house and warehouse building. Erection of industrial storage and warehouse buildings with ancillary offices and laboratory – Approved subject to conditions
82/D13335 Outline application for industrial development - Approved.
81/D12817 Outline application – warehousing and light industrial development - Approved.
Publicity Responses: A publicity letter was sent to the neighbouring residents and a site notice was posted – two objections have been received from residents of Sykes Street which can be summarised as follows:
1. There is considerable noise from the site and it has increased over the past few years. This is particularly disruptive in the early morning and late evening. 2. Further works on this site will exacerbate the noise and inconvenience for local residents. 3. The properties would be devalued as a result of further development on the site. 4. Residents are not happy about chemicals being stored near their properties. List A Page - 23 -
5. The outlook from the residential properties is bad enough already, particularly in winter when the foliage is less.
I note the applicants carried out some pre-application consultation with neighbouring residents. The results of this consultation were submitted with the application. The feedback was predominantly negative for similar reasons as outlined above although one resident did support the scheme as it would improve the appearance of the area.
Consultation Responses: Head of Highways and Engineering - no objections.
Environmental Health - no objections.
Views of Officer: This application has been assessed against the provisions of Policies BE/2 ‘Design Criteria for New Development’, EM/3 ‘Noise and New Development’ and A/9 ‘New Development – Access for General Traffic’ in the adopted UDP.
The application site is within the defined urban area and has long been established as an industrial site. Previously operating as Coates Lorrilleux, the site is now under the ownership of Sun Chemicals. There is an extensive planning history to the site as detailed above.
This application is for the erection of a steel frame storage building for barrels on the north eastern boundary of the site. The proposed building would be 3.9m tall at the rear (adjacent to the boundary) rising to 4.5m at the front. The 3.9m high panelling would then continue along the boundary for a further 12.4m to provide a screen from the storage area.
The principle of the storage building is acceptable as it is ancillary to the business and industrial use of the site. In terms of size, scale and design, the proposed canopy is relatively small and an appropriate style and design that is in-keeping with the industrial nature of the site.
Due to the close proximity of neighbouring residents, it is necessary to consider the impact of the proposed development on their residential amenity, particularly visual amenity and noise disturbance. In terms of the visual impact of the building, I acknowledge the concerns of the residents from Sykes Street that the proposed structure would be visually prominent and unsightly when viewed from their properties. However, the application site is located approximately 21m away from Sykes Street and there is a landscaped buffer area with dense tree cover and natural vegetation in between. Whilst I accept the foliage would be less during the winter months, I am still of the opinion that the existing landscaping is sufficient to partially obscure the proposed building and screen fencing and thus lessen the visual impact. In addition, the structure and screen fencing would be finished in green which would further reduce the effects of the development. It is also important to note here that the purpose of the building is to store barrels and formalise this area of the site as it currently has an untidy and unmanaged appearance and the current paladin style mesh boundary fence leaves the site fully exposed to residents of Sykes Street. On List A Page - 24 - this basis I consider the erection of this structure would actually improve the outlook from Sykes Street as it would act as a screen to obscure the industrial site whilst forming a clear boundary between the two uses; residential and industrial.
As the site is an active industrial site a certain level of noise disturbance is expected and I note the concerns of neighbouring residents regarding the effect of existing noise levels on their lives and the worry that further works on the site would exacerbate this problem. However, despite the fact this section of the site would become a formalised storage area; I consider the proposed development may actually reduce the current levels of noise nuisance experienced by residents of Sykes Street from the site as a whole as the existing paladin mesh fencing would be replaced by solid 3.9m high panelling which would serve as an acoustic barrier. The designated storage area and screen fencing along the boundary would also minimise the risk of light nuisance from vehicle headlights as light would not filter through to the houses as at present. However, to further protect the amenities of neighbouring residents from noise and light nuisance, I suggest a condition limiting the hours of working and vehicle movement is imposed. On this basis, the proposed development could arguably improve the residential amenities of neighbouring residents from the current situation and I note that having considered the proposals, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has no objections to the development.
In respect of the other concerns raised by the objectors, for clarity I will assess these individually. The impact on property values is not a planning matter and therefore has not been taken into consideration in the determination of this application. With regards to the storage of chemicals close to residential properties, I consider the proposed storage facilities are ancillary to the existing business use of the site and as the development is within the confines of the site boundary I therefore consider the proposal to be acceptable.
In summary, the principle of the proposed development at Sun Chemicals industrial site is acceptable and would help improve the visual amenity of this area of the site. In my opinion, there would be no further detriment to the amenities of neighbouring residents through noise, visual amenity, loss of outlook or highways safety. The proposal satisfies the requirements of policies BE/2, A/9 and EM/3 of the adopted UDP and is recommended for approval.
Delegation Scheme: The Committee have delegated powers to determine the application either way on reasonable planning grounds.
______
List A Page - 25 -
Application Number Application Type Ward 08/D51134 Full Planning Littleborough Lakeside
CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF STABLES TO A SINGLE DWELLING
CLOUGH BANK, CLOUGH ROAD, LITTLEBOROUGH, OL15 9PA
For:- MRS R SUGDEN Received 18-Jul-2008
REC OMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions
Conditions: 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application no development shall be commenced until samples or full details of materials to be used externally on the building(s) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials. Only the materials so approved shall be used, in accordance with any terms of such approval. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended or any equivalent Order, no further development shall be carried within the site under Schedule 2, Part1, Classes A, B, C, D or E of that Order without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 4. Prior to any development commencing details of the proposed fencing/walling/gates to be erected around the boundary of the site shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 5. Before any development commences on site, details of the proposed materials and external finish of external joinery to be used in the doors and windows of the building shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 6. Prior to the commencement of any development on site, a survey for the presence of bats shall be carried out by a person, the identity of whom shall be agreed in writing previously with the Local Planning Authority and the results of the survey submitted to the Local Planning Authority. If the survey indicates evidence of the presence of bats, a scheme for their protection (including the timing of the proposed alterations to, and the extension to, the barn and the alternative artificial bat boxes on trees, buildings or other structures) shall be submitted to and for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented strictly in accordance with a timescale approved by the Local Planning Authority before any development commences.
List A Page - 26 -
7. Notwithstanding any submitted details the conversion works shall be undertaken fully in accordance with a method statement to be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any development. The duly approved scheme shall be supervised by a suitably qualified professional, the identity of whom shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority before any development is commenced. 8. The extent of the curtilage to serve this dwelling hereby approved is defined with a black dashed line on the approved plans. 9. Prior to any development commencing an investigation and assessment must be carried out to determine whether the land has been contaminated. The survey method must be agreed in advance with the Local Planning Authority. If the results of the investigation indicate the presence of any contaminants, development shall not be commenced until the source of the contamination has been removed or the land treated in such a manner as to render it suitable for development in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity. 3. In order to enable the Local Planning Authority to control any further development within the site in the interests of safeguarding the aims and objectives of Green Belt Policy. 4. In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity. 5. In order to protect the character and appearance of the building. 6. To ensure the protection of the wildlife habitat of bats, which are a protected species under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, (as amended). 7. To ensure that the works do not result in major or complete reconstruction of the building in accordance with the requirement of Policy C/8 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan. 8. In order to protect the openness and character of the Green Belt. 9. To ensure the safe development of the site. ______List A Page - 27 -
Reason for Recommendation. The proposed conversion works are deemed to be acceptable in accordance with the advice as contained in Policies D/9, BE/2 and D/4 of the Rochdale UDP
Report
Site: The application relates to an area of land which bounds Clough Road and lies just to the south of no’s 1, 3 and 4 Clough Bank. These adjacent dwellings are situated higher than the application site. The site is some 0.06 hectares and it contains a stable block which overlooks a paddock. To the south of the site lies a group of mature trees while to the north and west the land rises steeply. The only access to the site is via Clough Road which extends from Calderbrook Road.
Proposal: It is proposed to convert the stables into a single dwelling. The proposal utilities the existing footprint of the stables and includes increasing the pitch of the roof to ensure there is sufficient headroom at the mezzanine level. The ridge of the roof is to be raised 1.5m and the height of the eaves would remain the same. The proposal also includes a new porch to be built at the side of the bungalow.
The proposed dwelling would contain two car parking spaces which would adjoin Clough Road. The building is to be clad with a stone façade which would replace the existing pebble dashed render.
Policy Background: Adopted UDP - site within the Green Belt Policy BE/2 - Design Criteria for New Development Policy D/4 - Control of Development within the Green Belt Policy D/9 - Re-use and Adaptation of Dwellings in the Green Belt
Site History: 1984/D17027 – One single and two double garages – Granted. 1985/D18182 – One dwelling - Refused.
Publicity Responses: A site notice has been displayed and letters of notification have been posted. Three letters of objection have been received and it is commented that: -
§ Access to the site is limited and the road is not adopted. § Clough Road does not contain any passing bays. § The development would significantly diminish the amenity of the area. § The proposal is contrary to the UDP.
Consultation Responses: Head of Highways & Engineering – no objections
The Wildlife Trust - Advise that a bat survey be undertaken. List A Page - 28 -
Contamination Team – no objections
Views of Officer: This application relates to development within the adopted Green Belt, and therefore, it must be assessed in accordance with the restrictive policies applicable to such areas. UDP Policy D/9 states that the re-use and adaptation of rural buildings will not normally be refused so long as the following criteria are met :-
1. The re-use/ adaptation will not have a materially greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it. 2. The building is of permanent and substantial construction and is capable of conversion to a new use without major or complete reconstruction. 3. The building is large enough for the proposed use without extensions of a size and design which would alter the basic character or appearance of the building or its contribution to the landscape. 4. The building can be capable of being provided with satisfactory means of access, services and ancillary facilities, such as hardstandings, gardens, fences, walls etc, without a significant impact on landscape character, the setting of the building or, where it falls within the Green Belt, the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it. 5. It is compatible with adjacent land uses and other policies/ proposals of the plan.
The proposed conversion of the building involves the insertion of several new windows and doorways. It also includes replacing the roof. The principle windows to serve the property would lie on its south facing elevation. The south facing elevation currently contains three large doors and these would be replaced by sliding glazed doors. The other openings would lie within the roof and two patio doors would lie on both of the gables. The proposal also involves replacing the roof and this replacement roof would be set 1.5m higher. The roof would be a green ‘living roof’ in that it would be landscaped. Green roofs are made of a waterproof fabric, crushed stones or soil and a carpet of either grass or sedums, alpine plants that require no cutting. They absorb rainwater while insulating buildings in winter and cooling them in summer. The plants also absorb CO2 and provide a haven to insects and birds. I encourage the use of green roofs and in this particular case it would complement the building and the surrounding area. Although the proposed roof would be set higher than the existing roof, it would not alter the basic character and size of the building and I do not consider it would have a significant impact on the openness of the green belt. I consider that the proposed alterations and adaptations to the building would not have a significant impact on the openness and character of the green belt.
Having viewed the building I consider it to be of a sound construction and I see no reason why its conversion would require major or complete reconstruction.
List A Page - 29 -
The application involves a single storey side extension which would lie on the east facing gable elevation of the building. This extension is 5.5m wide and it projects 2m. This extension would provide the entrance into the dwelling and its flat roof would be used as a balcony. I consider this extension is well designed in which it would be a subordinate addition to the dwelling. I do not consider this extension would alter the basic character or appearance of the building or its contribution to the landscape.
The dwelling would be provided with two in curtilage car parking spaces and these would be served directly from Clough Road. Access to these spaces would be from an existing access which currently serves the paddock. The proposed car parking spaces are appropriately sited and with the support of the Head of Highways and Engineering I consider the car parking and access arrangements are satisfactory.
I consider that the proposal is satisfactory in that it satisfies all the requirements of policy D/9 of the Rochdale UDP.
Adjoining the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling is a retaining wall and beyond this lies the access which serves no’s 1, 3 and 4 Clough Bank. These dwelling are set higher than the proposed dwelling and at the nearest point they would lie 15m from its rear elevation. The rear elevation of the proposed dwelling is screened by the adjacent retaining wall and consequently when viewed from no’s 1,3 and 4 Clough Bank only its roof would be visible. This section of the roof would contain several skylights. The front elevation of no. 1 Clough Bank would lie 16.3m from the proposed balcony and I consider that this distance is sufficient as to protect the amenities and privacy of the residents of this dwelling. I consider that the relationship between the proposed dwelling and no’s 1,3 and 4 Clough Back would be acceptable in which the privacy and amenities of these residents would not be unduly affected.
The dwelling would contain a small curtilage which would extend around the dwelling. This small curtilage would ensure that the dwelling only has a limited impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt.
With regard to the letters of objection which have been received I respond: -
§ I confirm the northern section of Clough is not adopted. It is considered that the proposed access and parking arrangements are satisfactory. § I do not consider that the development would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. § The proposal accords with the relevant policies as contained in the Rochdale UDP.
In summary I consider that the proposal is in accordance with the requirements of Policy D/9 (Re-Use and Adaptation of Buildings in Rural Areas) in that it is capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction occurring and its re-use will not have a greater impact than the previous use on the openness of the Green Belt.
List A Page - 30 -
Delegation Scheme: The Committee has delegated powers to determine the application on reasonable planning grounds.
______
Application Number Application Type Ward 08/D51166 Full Planning Littleborough Lakeside, Milnrow and Newhey
ERECTION OF DETACHED BUILDING TO PROVIDE GARAGES AND SELF- CONTAINED LIVING ACCOMMODATION ONLY TO BE USED FOR PURPOSES ANCILLARY TO ENJOYMENT OF CLEGG HALL
CLEGG HALL, CLEGG HALL ROAD, LITTLEBOROUGH, OL15 0AA
For:- ME J STEAD Received 25-Jul-2008
RECOMMENDATION Grant Permission subject to conditions
Conditions: 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The living accommodation within the building hereby approved shall only be occupied by a person solely or mainly employed or last employed for purposes connected with the running of the adjacent Grade II * listed building of Clegg Hall and by any dependants or immediate family of such a person residing with them and the building shall otherwise be used for purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of Clegg Hall as a private dwellinghouse. 3. The proposed building shall be constructed fully in accordance with the details shown on the approved plan, (drawing No.DC 8/2 A). Before any work begins on the proposed building however, samples of the external walling and roofing materials shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Plannng Authority. 4. The proposed stone boundary wall alongside the south eastern boundary of the site shall be constructed as shown on the approved plans and a sample of the natural stone shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Plannng Authority before any work on constructing the wall first takes place.
List A Page - 31 -
5. Within six months of the development first starting on the site, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Plannng Authority. Such a scheme shall include details of the type, species, siting, planting distances and the programme of planting of trees and shrubs. The scheme of planting, as approved, shall be carried out during the first planting season after the building is substantially completed and the areas which are landscaped shall be retained as landscaped areas thereafter. Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within three years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally requires to be planted. 6. The proposed access road into the site and other areas of vehicular hardstanding within the site shall only be constructed and formed in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans, (drawing No. DC 6/2. 7. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, a scheme of works for forming a landscaped area at the front of Clegg Hall to prevent vehicular parking off the highway of Clegg Hall Road at the front/eastern side of the Hall shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Plannng Authority. The duly approved scheme of works shall be carried out in accordance with a schedule of works that shall be agreed as part of this condition. 8. There shall be no direct vehicular access from the highway of Clegg Hall Road to the proposed new building within the portion of the application site cross-hatched on the approved plans. 9. Before any works begin on site, a scheme of works for an archaeological survey of the site shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Plannng Authority. That survey shall involve the compilation of a detailed site record, (including a survey of the building), and the undertaking of some trial trenching to create an archive record and interpretation of the hall and its origins. The survey shall be undertaken by an appropriately qualified archaeological contractor, (the identity of whom shall first be agreed with the Local Plannng Authority), working to an agreed project design, that shall be funded by the applicant. The agreed scheme of works shall be undertaken in accordance with a programme of works that shall first be agreed with the Local Plannng Authority and the works shall be monitored by the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit on behalf of the Local Plannng Authority.
Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. The site lies within the Green Belt where there is normally a strong presumption against the development of new dwellings. Permission has only been granted for this building on the basis that it is to provide ancillary living accommodation for a housekeeper or other form of staff accommodation in connection with the occupation of the Grade 2* Listed Building of Clegg Hall as a single private dwelling house. List A Page - 32 -
3. In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity. 4. In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity. 5. In order to safeguard the amenities of the area and to prevent nuisance arising. 6. In the interests of safeguarding the character and setting of the Grade II * listed building of Clegg Hall and the Clegg Hall Conservation Area and for the avoidance of doubt. 7. In the interests of the visual amenities of the site and because insufficient details were submitted as part of the planning application. 8. In the interests of the visual amenities of the site and for the avoidance of doubt. 9. There are both below and above-ground archaeological interests at this site of significant local historical importance and an archaeological survey of the site should therefore be undertaken as part of this development in accordance with UDP policies BE/10 and BE/11. ______
Reason for Recommendation: This new building would provide various facilities for use by the future occupiers of Clegg Hall, a large and important Grade II * Listed Building. It would provide ancillary garage space and living accommodation for a housekeeper or other form of staff accommodation in connection with the occupation of the Hall and such facilities should secure the viable use of the Hall as a single dwellinghouse into the future. The proposal satisfies the relevant policies of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan and is considered to be acceptable in all other respects.
Report
Site: The application relates to an area of land at the rear and side of Clegg Hall, close to its boundary with the adjoining former Clegg Hall Mills site.
Clegg Hall is a magnificent Grade II * listed building, built around 1610 for Theophilus Ashton. Until recently the building was in a severely ruinous state but in 2004 the applicant acquired the site and he has since fully restored the Hall to a very high standard. This has resulted in an outstanding large private single family dwelling that has earned a high degree of praise.
The application relates to the south-eastern corner of the site, which is currently occupied by the remains of a stone-built outbuilding of some sort. That structure comprises a series of incomplete walls, of varying height, which are in a very poor state of structural repair. It is not clear how large this previous building was originally or for what purpose it was previously used.
List A Page - 33 -
Proposal: The proposed new building is to comprise a two-storey cottage providing approximately 85 sq.m of net living accommodation in the form of a ground floor living room, dining/kitchen area, hall and toilet and at first floor, two bedrooms, a bathroom and a first floor study. The integral garage and store is to measure approximately 64 sq.m.
The proposed building is designed in a generally traditional style to try and respect the character of the adjacent listed building. The building is to be constructed using natural stone and reclaimed natural slate, and using timber doors and windows throughout.
The applicant has made the following summarised comments in support of his proposal:
Originally the Hall presumably had a number of outbuildings for storage, stabling and possibly servant accommodation etc. The footprints of some structures are shown on old Ordnance Survey maps but now only the remaining stone walls of a single structure exists in the south east corner. There are therefore now no structures for accommodating any staff, storage or vehicles, which would normally be expected for a single dwelling of this large size and high value.
It would be technically possible to build a modest extension to some part of the Hall however, such an extension would clearly have an unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the Hall itself.
The current proposal has been designed to provide a detached building to provide garaging for the Hall and also separate and self-contained living accommodation for a housekeeper(s) for the Hall. Being a detached building positioned to the side/rear of the Hall, it would preserve the main important views of the rear of the Hall from both the front and rear. The proposed new building occupies the position of the existing ruined outbuilding, although it would be a much larger and taller structure.
If the application were to be approved by the Council, then the applicant would be prepared to accept a condition to legally tie the occupation of the new dwelling to a housekeeper employed at Clegg Hall.
Policy Background: Replacement adopted UDP – the site lies within the Green Belt and the Clegg Hall Conservation Area. The most relevant UDP policies include:-
Policy D/4 Control of Development in Green Belt - General Policy D/7 Extensions to Residential Properties Policy H/3 Residential Developments Outside Allocated Areas Policy BE/2 Design Criteria for New Development Policy BE/11 Development Affecting Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments Policy BE/17 New Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building List A Page - 34 -
Policy BE/20 New Development Affecting Conservation Areas
Site History: 2006 - Erection of one new cottage incorporating part of existing structure and attached double garage (D47359) - withdrawn.
Publicity Responses: The neighbouring properties were notified of the application. Site notices were posted and the application was formally advertised in the press as development likely to affect the setting of the Clegg Hall listed building. No representations have been received.
Consultation Responses: Head of Highways & Engineering:- no objections. It is recommended however, that to be in keeping with the nature of Clegg Hall Road, the access road within the site should be constructed with a bound road surface material, rather than loose stone chippings.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit:- Clegg Hall is one of Rochdale Borough’s greatest architectural and archaeological treasures and it is good to know that it will soon be inhabited again and has been rescued from total collapse. However, there are both below and above ground archaeological interests at this site and an archaeological survey should therefore be undertaken at this site.
Such a survey needs to establish the original layout and function of the hall and its antecedents. Whilst much repair and change have already been effected, there is still an opportunity to pull together existing resources, carry out a detailed site record, (including a survey of the building), and undertake some trial trenching to create an archive record and interpretation of the hall and its origins. The requirement to carry out this archaeological survey should be a condition of any planning permission/listed building consent. The survey should be undertaken by an appropriately qualified archaeological contractor, working to an agreed project design, and funded by the applicant. The Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit would monitor the works on behalf of the Local Plannng Authority and advise when they have been satisfactorily completed.
English Heritage:- views not yet received.
British Waterways:- no comments to make.
Views of Officer: There are two main issues to consider; whether the erection of the proposed dwelling and garage is acceptable in principle, (having regard to Green Belt policy), and whether the design and scale of the proposed building would be acceptable in the grounds of the Grade II * Listed Building of Clegg Hall.
List A Page - 35 -
1. The principle of the development having regard to green belt policy
The proposal is for an outbuilding to serve two purposes for the future owners/occupiers of the Hall: a) to provide a garage for two cars and an ancillary storage area and b) to provide living accommodation for a future housekeeper for the Hall.
Clegg Hall is a relatively large building for occupation as a private single dwelling and will also be of a high value. It will therefore quite reasonable, at least in my view, for the owners/occupiers to expect some living accommodation at the site for a housekeeper. Whilst servants may well have lived in the Hall with its owners in the distant past, these days it would also be a reasonable expectation for the staff to live in physically separate living accommodation, albeit close by for practical convenience.
It should be noted that the Hall currently has no outbuildings of any sort for the storage of cars or other possessions such as garden furniture, bicycles and other similar possessions etc.
The proposed outbuilding would provide garage space for two cars and a storage area and would also provide a relatively modest amount of living accommodation for a housekeeper.
Given these circumstances, for assessing the impact upon the Green BeIt I consider that policy D/7 is most relevant. This is because the building is for a garage and an ancillary domestic building to the Hall, (albeit that it will include self-contained living accommodation). Policy D/7 requires that:-
§ The building is of a scale and character which does not conflict with the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it; and § The building does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the existing dwelling and is not visually detrimental by reason of its siting, materials or design.
Although the building would be visible from Clegg Hall Road, being positioned so far to the rear and at the side of the Hall, it would not be a prominent feature when viewed from that direction. The proposed landscaping along the southern boundary should tend to screen the building from that direction and thereby reduce its impact on the setting of the Hall from Wildhouse Lane.
The building would stand within the curtilage of the Clegg Hall site and I therefore do not consider that this proposal would conflict with the openness of the Green Belt.
2. The design of the proposed building and its impact on Clegg Hall and the remainder of the Clegg Hall conservation area
The design of the building has been closely discussed with the Council’s Conservation & Design Officer and it is considered to be of a suitably high quality for the site. The building would occupy a subsidiary relationship with List A Page - 36 - both the Hall and adjacent Clegg Hall Mills site, which are also grade II listed buildings.
The proposed building would stand at a lower level than the adjacent Clegg Hall Mill site, and the combination of the boundary walls between the two sites would mean that it would not adversely affect that listed building either.
The building is to be constructed using natural stone with a reclaimed natural slate roof. The use of timber door and window frames throughout, including the garage doors, will also add to its traditional appearance. The layout of the building has been carefully designed so that its garage doors would be on its rear elevation and would therefore not be visible from Clegg Hall Road. The proposed landscaping along the southern boundary should
I therefore consider that the proposal would fully satisfy each of the relevant UDP design policies and that it should also actually enhance the character of the Clegg Hall conservation area.
In all of these circumstances, I recommend that this application be approved subject to appropriate conditions. Condition 2 of my recommendation would limit the occupation of the living accommodation to a housekeeper or other member of staff working in the Hall and so that it shall not be used as a private dwellinghouse unconnected with Clegg Hall in the future.
At the time of the preparation of this report, the consultation response from English Heritage is still awaited, although they hope to provide their views on the proposal by 23 September. The views of English Heritage will therefore be reported verbally to Members at the evening of this committee meeting and if necessary, the application could therefore be deferred.
Delegation Scheme: Members have delegated powers to determine this application either way using reasonable planning grounds.
______
List A Page - 37 -
Application Number Application Type Ward 08/D51167 Listed Building Consent Littleborough Lakeside, Milnrow and Newhey
REMOVAL OF REMAINS OF DERELICT OUTBUILDING AND RE-USE OF SUITABLE STONE IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW DETACHED BUILDING TO PROVIDE LIVING ACCOMMODATION AND DOUBLE GARAGE WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF CLEGG HALL
CLEGG HALL, CLEGG HALL ROAD, LITTLEBOROUGH, OL15 0AA
For:- MR J STEAD Received 25-Jul-2008
RECOMMENDATION Grant Consent subject to condition
Conditions: 1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reasons: 1. Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. ______
Reason for Recommendation: The demolition of the structure is essential to allow the construction of the new building subject to planning application D51166. The existing structure makes no beneficial contribution to the setting of the Grade II * Listed building of Clegg Hall or the other nearby listed buildings of Clegg Hall Mills, or the character of the Clegg Hall Conservation Area.
Report
Site: The application relates to an area of land at the rear and side of Clegg Hall, close to its boundary with the adjoining former Clegg Hall Mills site.
Clegg Hall is a magnificent Grade II * listed building, built around 1610 for Theophilus Ashton. Until recently the building was in a severely ruinous state but in 2004 the applicant acquired the site and he has since fully restored the Hall to a very high standard. This has resulted in an outstanding large private single family dwelling that has earned a high degree of praise.
The application relates to the south-eastern corner of the site, which is currently occupied by the remains of a stone-built outbuilding of some sort. That structure comprises a series of incomplete walls, of varying height, which List A Page - 38 - are in a very poor state of structural repair. It is not clear how large this previous building was originally or for what purpose it was previously used.
Proposal: The proposal is to demolish the existing structure. It is intended to re-use as much of the natural stone of the structure to construct a new outbuilding in its place comprising garage and storage space and living accommodation for use by a housekeeper/other staff employed by the owners/future occupiers of the adjacent Clegg Hall. That proposal, (reference: application D51166), is the subject of the preceding item on this agenda.
Policy Background: Replacement adopted UDP – the site lies within the Green Belt and the Clegg Hall Conservation Area. The most relevant UDP policies include:-
Policy BE/11 - Development Affecting Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments
Site History: 2006 - Erection of one new cottage incorporating part of existing structure and attached double garage (D47359) - withdrawn.
Publicity Responses: The neighbouring properties were notified of the application. Site notices were posted and the application was formally advertised in the press as development likely to affect the setting of the Clegg Hall Conservation Area. No representations have been received.
Consultation Responses: Head of Highways & Engineering:- no objections.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit:- Clegg Hall is one of Rochdale Borough’s greatest architectural and archaeological treasures and it is good to know that it will soon be inhabited again and has been rescued from total collapse. However, there are both below and above ground archaeological interests at this site and an archaeological survey should therefore be undertaken at this site.
Such a survey needs to establish the original layout and function of the hall and its antecedents. Whilst much repair and change have already been effected, there is still an opportunity to pull together existing resources, carry out a detailed site record, (including a survey of the building), and undertake some trial trenching to create an archive record and interpretation of the hall and its origins. The requirement to carry out this archaeological survey should be a condition of any planning permission/listed building consent. The survey should be undertaken by an appropriately qualified archaeological contractor, working to an agreed project design, and funded by the applicant. The Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit would monitor the works on behalf of the local planning authority and advise when they have been satisfactorily completed.
List A Page - 39 -
English Heritage:- views still awaited.
British Waterways:- no comments to make.
Views of Officer: The remains of this structure do not make any positive contribution to the appearance of the site or the setting of Clegg Hall. Its removal would therefore have no adverse impact upon the Hall, the adjacent listed Clegg Hall Mills site or the wider conservation area.
The views of English Heritage are still awaited at the time of the preparation of this report but are expected by 23 September. The views of English Heritage will hopefully be referred to Members on the evening of this committee meeting and if necessary, it would be possible to defer the consideration of the application.
Delegation Scheme: Members have delegated powers to determine this application either way using reasonable planning grounds.
______
Application Number Application Type Ward 08/D51168 Full Planning Wardle
REMOVAL OF CONDITION 02 OF PLANNING APPROVAL 08/D50600 RELATING TO INSTALLATION OF TIMBER FRAMED WINDOWS TO FRONT ELEVATION OF BUILDING
153, RAMSDEN ROAD, ROCHDALE, OL12 9NX
For:- MACKENZIE DEVELOPMENTS Received 28-Jul-2008
RECOMMENDATION Refuse Permission
Reasons: 1. The application building is a three storey, stone built property located in a prominent position in the centre of Wardle Conservation Area. The building is considered to be locally important. The existing UPVC windows on the front elevation are detrimental to the overall character and appearance of the building and the architectural and historic character of the Conservation Area and failure to replace these windows with traditional timber frames in the future would undermine the purposes of the Conservation Area. The proposal to remove Condition 02 of planning approval 08/D50600 would fail to satisfy the requirements of Policies BE/2 'Design Criteria and New Development' and BE/17 'New Development Affecting Conservation Areas' of the Unitary Development Plan. List A Page - 40 -
Report
Site: The application site is a large, three storey stone built property fronting Ramsden Road in Wardle, Rochdale. The building, which was constructed in the late 19 th century, is located within the Wardle Conservation Area and is considered to be locally important. The building was originally used as a Co- op shop and trading century before being converted into a residential home for the elderly in 20 th century. Planning permission for change of use to six self contained apartments was granted in 2008 (reference 08/D50600). The surrounding area is predominantly residential. St James Church to the south east of the application site and the public house on the opposite side of Wardle Square are Grade 2 Listed Buildings.
Proposal: This is a full planning application for the removal of Condition 02 of planning approval 08/D50600 relating to the installation of timber framed windows to the front window.
Following fire damage to the building in 2005 new upvc windows were installed throughout the building without the benefit of planning consent. In order to secure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of retaining the architectural and historic character of the Conservation Area the following condition was imposed on the recent planning application for change of use of the building to six self-contained apartments:
‘Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans, before the occupation of the first dwelling hereby approved, an alternative scheme for the installation of timber framed windows to the front elevation of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall thereafter be fully implemented in accordance with a timescale to have been first approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority unless an alternative timescale is subsequently approved. Once installed the approved window design shall be retained thereafter.’
The applicants are applying to remove the above condition so the existing upvc windows can be retained without the need to replace them with timber windows in the future.
Site History: 08/D40600 Change of use and conversion of the building to contain six self- contained apartments – Grant permission subject to conditions
92/D27917 Change of use from rest home to house in multiple occupation – Refused June 1992 – Appeal Dismissed March 1993
Policy Background: Policies in the Unitary Development Plan: BE/17 New Development Affecting Conservation Areas BE/2 Design Criteria and New Development
List A Page - 41 -
The advice contained in PPG15: ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ is also relevant.
Publicity Responses: Publicity letters were sent to all adjacent properties. A site notice was also posted and an announcement was placed in the paper. No objections have been received
Consultation Responses: Head of Highways and Engineering – no objections.
Design and Conservation Officer – comments as previous – the upvc windows do not have consent and are unacceptable.
Views of Officer: With regard to the use of UPVC windows the Council advises that:-
Value: research by English Heritage has shown that over the lifetime of a typical 25 year mortgage, the installation and maintenance costs of high quality timber windows actually works out cheaper than uPVC (this despite advertising blitzes which claim the contrary). Selling your property: Estate agents confirm that replacing traditional timber windows in a property with uPVC, rather than enhancing the value of the property, will actually reduce it as customers are seeking traditional features. Detailing: excellent though many of the products are, uPVC will only be appropriate in certain circumstances. They cannot reproduce the character of traditional windows in anything but the very crudest way. The width of the frames is often clumsy, they lack the detailing and profile of glazing bars, they often open inappropriately and the glazing bars are often flat and wide and actually sandwiched between the glass panes. Use in historic buildings and conservation areas: because of their lack of detail and quality, uPVC windows are unacceptable on listed buildings and they are highly unlikely to be acceptable in flats and shops, offices and commercial buildings within conservation areas
The application site is a locally important building located within Wardle Conservation Area. The proposal to remove the condition relating to the installation of timber windows will be considered against the provisions of policies BE/2 ‘Design Criteria for New Development’ and BE/17 ‘New Development Affecting Conservation Areas’ in the Council’s adopted UDP. The replacement of windows from timber to upvc in commercial buildings or flats in a Conservation Area requires planning consent, unlike for dwelling houses where this operation is classed as permitted development.
Policy BE/17 states that development proposals will be permitted that preserve or enhance the character of a Conservation Area and in assessing proposals, the design of a building, including its elevations, roof form, materials, finishes and detailing will be taken into account.
When the application for the change of use of the building to form six self- contained apartments was submitted in 2008 (08/D40600), the existing upvc List A Page - 42 - windows that were installed without the benefit of planning consent in 2007 were considered inappropriate within a designated Conservation Area and severely detrimental to the overall appearance and character of the building. On this basis a condition was imposed requiring an alternative scheme for the replacement of the windows on the front elevation of the building with traditional timber frames to be submitted prior to the occupation of the first dwellings.
The Council considers it has acted reasonably in applying this condition as the submission of a scheme offers the applicant flexibility in the timescale for replacing the windows, whereas the Council would also have been acting reasonably should a stricter condition with a set time frame have been imposed. The wording of this condition also enabled the applicant to bring the building into use and generate income from the sale/letting of the apartments to help finance the replacement of the windows. In addition, the Condition only covers the windows on the front elevation as these are most prominent within the Conservation Area. On this basis I consider the Council has displayed enough leniencies with the applicant and it would be wholly inappropriate to remove the Condition as failure to replace these windows with timber frames in the future would be detrimental to the appearance of the building and the Conservation Area.
In summary, I consider Condition 02 on planning approval 08/D50600 relating to the installation of timber framed windows to front elevation to be reasonable and appropriate to restore the character and appearance of the application property and Wardle Conservation Area. The proposal to remove the condition would fail to satisfy the requirements of Policies BE/17 and BE/2 of the Council’s UDP and should be refused.
Delegation Scheme: The Committee have delegated powers to determine the application on reasonable planning grounds.
______
List A Page - 43 -
Application Number Application Type Ward 08/D51237 Full Planning Littleborough Lakeside
INSTALLATION OF ROLLER SHUTTERS TO FRONT ELEVATION WINDOWS AND DOOR - RESUBMISSION D50852
38, VICTORIA STREET, LITTLEBOROUGH, OL15 9DB
For:- LITTLEBOROUGH OLD PEOPLES WELFARE ASSOC. Received 21-Aug-2008
RECOMMENDATION Refuse Permission
Reasons: 1. This application relates to a traditional shop front situated within the Littleborough Town Centre Conservation Area. The proposed shutter and shutter box would cover the full width of the premises and would present an oppressive and monotonous feature when closed. In addition when the shutter is open the protruding external box would appear crude and discordant. The shutter and shutter box would be detrimental to the character of the building and the Conservation Area, therefore contrary to the provisions of policies BE/5 (Shop Fronts) and BE/17 (New Development Affecting Conservation Areas) of the Council's Unitary Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance: Littleborough Town Design Statement.
______
Report The exact same application at this location was refused under delegated powers in June 2008 (D50852). Councillor Ashley Dearnley has requested that the resubmission be determined by the Pennines Planning Committee.
Site: The site relates to a single storey mid terraced property on Victoria Street, the premises are currently used as a café. There is a retail shop on one side and the Littleborough United Reformed Church on the other. The area is commercial in nature and the site is located within the Littleborough Town Centre Conservation Area.
Proposal: The application is for a roller shutter with external shutter box, to be installed over the existing door and window in the front elevation of the café. The proposed shutters would be brown in colour and when closed would cover the whole shop front down to the pavement.
List A Page - 44 -
Site History: D50852 - Installation of roller shutters to front elevation windows and door – refused.
Policy Background: BE/2 - Design Criteria for New Development BE/5 - Shop Fronts BE/17 - New Development Affecting Conservation Areas
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Littleborough Town Design Statement
Supplementary Planning Guidance: Design Guidelines for Shop Fronts and Associated Advertisements
Consultation Responses: Conservation Officer – supports the recommendation for refusal. Highways Service – no comment
Publicity Responses: A letter of notification was sent to surrounding neighbours and no representations have been made.
Views of Officer: The shop lies within the Littleborough Conservation Area and its designation was made as the Council considers that it is an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. It is the duty of the Council to ensure that the area retains its character. The proposal to attach external shutters and shutter box would spoil the appearance of the building and adversely affect the character and appearance of the street scene. Moreover, a concentration of external roller shutters, in prominent locations such as in Littleborough, can result in a bleak, depressing frontage which magnifies any anti social problems. Where such a situation arises, shoppers are unlikely to “window shop”, which not only reduces the amount of natural surveillance in the evenings and weekends, but also ultimately reduces trade to the individual retailer and other traders in the locality.
I note also the provisions of Supplementary Planning Guidance: Littleborough Town Design Statement states that “shutters and security grilles preferably should be internal and sympathetic to the building, an open lattice design being preferred. Boxes for roller shutters if used should be recessed.”
A similar application at no.66 Church Street (D48354), also in Littleborough Town Centre Conservation Area has recently been refused retrospective planning permission for a very similar external shutter and shutter box. This decision was considered at appeal and the appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspector who concluded that the roller shutters ‘create a dominant and incongruous feature on the appeal building and on the streetscene when closed. In addition, when the shutter is open the protruding external brown finished box appears crude and discordant’. I consider that the current List A Page - 45 - application at 38 Victoria Street is similar and therefore the decision at no. 66 Church Street is a material consideration.
I accept that there are numerous security shutters within Littleborough Town Centre, but would point out that in most instances these do not have planning consent and the presence of other inappropriate shutters does not justify the approval of this one. In view of this and the decisions on the similar proposal at 66 Church Street I am of the opinion that the proposal is detrimental to the character of the building and the Conservation Area contrary to policies BE/5 (Shop Fronts) and BE/17 (New Development Affecting Conservation Areas) of the Unitary Development Plan.
In summary, external solid metal shutters on shopfronts are unattractive, are extremely vulnerable to graffiti, and can adversely contribute to the appearance of an area under threat, thus inviting further damage. It is apparent that within Littleborough Town Centre the shops which do contain external roller shutters are creating an unsightly appearance. Therefore if Littleborough is to retain it’s special character the use of external roller shutters should be resisted. If a physical barrier is essential, then by far the least visually damaging approach is a lattice grille located behind the glazing, designed to respect the size and shape of the window opening and incorporating a concealed housing. The use of security glass is also recommended as this has the capacity to remain intact even when broken.
Delegation Scheme: Members have delegated powers to determine this application either way on reasonable planning grounds. If members are minded to approve the application, it would have to be considered by the Regulatory Committee as it would conflict with a previous decision made by the Council.
______