Appeals Received:

  1. Application No. 03/46176/FUL – Blackthorn Homes – 151 Bury Old Road, Salford 8 – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of part three, four and five storey block of 12 apartments with undercroft parking area.
  1. Application 03/46231/HH – A Pines – 6 Cheltenham Crescent, Salford 7 – Erection of front porch and two storey side/rear extension.
  1. 03/46102/COU – M Bolubasz – Kennedy House, Rutland Street, Swinton – Retention of use of former dental laboratory as dance school.
  1. 03/46570/FUL – J Kamali – 8 Vine Street, Salford 7 – Demolition of existing building and erection of four storey building comprising 21 apartments.
  1. 03/46963/HH – Mrs O’Shea – 20 Overlinks Drive, Salford 6 – Erection of part single/part two storey rear extension and first floor rear extension.
  1. 03/46497/FUL – Bellway Homes – The Coppice, Chatsworth Road, Worsley – Demolition of existing four houses and erection of one – four storey block of 12 apartments, one two storey block of two apartments and 16 three storey dwellings.
  1. 03/47452/FUL – J Sloyan – Land at rear of 2A Vernon Avenue, Eccles – Continued use of land as vehicle repair centre.
  1. 03/47314/HH – Mr and Mrs Herreran – 13 Hereford Drive, Swinton – Erection of first floor rear extension and two storey rear extension.
  1. 03/47356/HH - A Mandel – 284 Leigh Road, Worsley – Retention of boundary fencing.
  1. 03/47243/FUL – A J Burke – Rear of 69 Manchester Road, Clifton – Retention of canopy over yard area.
  1. 03/43914/FUL – Kenny Skip Hire – Land on west side of Lester Road, Little Hulton – Continued use of land as waste transfer station and management station including erection of office, maintenance processing and storage sheds, alteration to existing vehicular access and removal of materials from site.
  1. 04/47533/FUL – P Whitworth – 36 Longview Drive, Swinton – Erection of part single and part two storey rear extension.
  1. 03/47181/FUL – F Evans – 1A Church Road, Eccles – Erection of first floor extension over existing ground floor workshop area.
  1. 03/47419/ADV – J C Decaux – Railway Bridge, New Bailey Street, Salford 3 – Display of one 48 sheet illuminated poster panel.
  1. 03/47195/HH – Mr and Mrs Lord – 1 Mardale Road, Swinton – Erection of two storey side extension and porch on front of dwelling.
  1. 03/46755/FUL – Mr and Mrs S Sanders – Oddfellows Arms, 4 Manchester Road, Clifton – Change of use of ground floor flat to form extension to existing pub lounge.

Appeal Decisions

Application No. 02/44644/COU – Benchmark Properties Ltd – Site at Moorfield Childrens Home, 2A Moorside Road, Swinton.

Appeal Dismissed

Planning permission for the change of use of childrens’ home to day nursery was refused in December, 2002.

The Inspector identified the main issues as being the effect of the proposal on road safety and the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular reference to noise and disturbance.

On the first issue the Inspector concluded that the proposal would not adversely affect road safety. On the second he considered the appellants had not satisfactorily demonstrated that the amenity of nearby residents would not be damaged as result of noise from the childrens play area. He decided the living conditions of nearby residents would be harmed as a result of noise and disturbance and dismissed the appeal.

Application No. 03/45789/HH – G and P Simpson – 8 Rutland Road, Monton, Eccles

Appeal Dismissed

Planning permission for the erection of a first floor front and side extension and front porch was refused in May, 2003 on the grounds that the extension would result in future pressure to fell or prune a protected tree due to the location of main habitable room windows.

The Inspector considered the main issue was the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area. The Inspector attributed considerable weight to the City Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Trees’ (2002).

The Inspector found that a Horsechestnut tree situated in close proximity to the appeal property, would need to be pruned to enable the extension to be constructed. In the future there would be further pressure for pruning because the tree branches would be touching the extension and there would be shading.

The Inspector concluded the tree is an importance feature in the area and provides significant amenity value. The tree is one of a group and contributes to the preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The appeal was dismissed.

Application No. 03/47104/ADV – Maiden Outdoor Advertising Ltd. – Site at Adelphi Street and junction of Crescent, Salford 5.

Appeal Dismissed

Consent for the display of externally illuminated 3 x 48 sheet static display panels and 1 x 48 sheet ultravision display unit was refused in November 2003 on the grounds the advertisement would injure the amenity of the Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area, the street scene and regeneration in the area.

The Inspector agreed, concluding the display would be excessive and out of place. He also felt their siting would be contrary to the Councils aims for regeneration in the area and its status as a Conservation Area.

The appeal was dismissed.

Application No. 03/47116/ADV – Maiden Outdoor Advertising Ltd. – Site at Pendleton Motors, Frederick Road, Salford 6

Appeal Dismissed

Consent for the display of two 48 sheet and two 96 sheet illuminated display panels with associated fencing and landscaping was refused in December 2003 on the grounds the panels would seriously harm the amenity of the area.

The Inspector considered the main issue was whether the panels would be in scale and keeping with the site and their surroundings.

It was concluded the display would be excessive and detrimental to amenity.

Application No. 03/46987/COU – Kai Hung Sin – Bank Chambers, Worsley Road, Swinton

Appeal Dismissed

Planning permission for the change of use from offices to licensed restaurant was refused in November, 2003 on the grounds that the amenity of neighbouring residents would be seriously injured by reason of traffic generation, insufficient parking and general disturbance.

The Inspector concluded that the unacceptable effect the proposed use would have on the living conditions of nearby residents through noise, disturbance and inconvenience from addition on-street parking is a compelling reason to dismiss this appeal.

Application No. 03/46591/FUL – Z Nabi – 349 Lower Broughton Road, Salford 7 –

Appeal dismissed.

Planning permission for the Removal of condition 02 on planning permission E/27772 to allow Sunday opening was refused in September, 2003.

The Inspector decided the main issue was whether closure on Sundays is reasonable and necessary to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents.

It was concluded that this residential area is relatively quiet, particularly on a Sunday evening. In the Inspectors view the additional comings and goings would create noise and disturbance in the form of talking/shouting, doors shutting, engines revving, music and alarms. To open on a Sunday would seriously harm the amenity of nearby residents when they can reasonably expect peace and quiet. The appeal was dismissed.

Application No. 03/46732/COU – Norwest Estate Services Ltd – 2 and ground floor of 4 Moorfield Parade, Liverpool Road, Irlam.

Appeal dismissed

Planning permission for the change of use from a shop to restaurant was refused in October, 2003 on the grounds that the amenity of neighbouring residents would be harmed and there are inadequate car parking and loading/unloading facilities.

The Inspector felt the main issues were whether the amenity of people living nearby would be unreasonably affected and whether there would be any traffic problems.

The Inspector did not accept there would be a highway safety problem. However, he agreed that a restaurant of the size proposed and open for the hours indicated, would pose a significant risk of nuisance to people living over Moorfield Parade. The appeal was dismissed.

Enforcement Appeal – Euro Car Parks and Mercantile Property Holdings Ltd – Site at Gore Street and Chapel Street, Salford 3.

Use of land as a car park

Decision

Both enforcement notices were quashed and planning permission was granted for the use of the site for temporary car parking until 28th February 2005.

Reason for serving enforcement notices

Enforcement notices were served on the owner and operator of the site in question. The notices required the cessation of the use of land as a car park, the clearing of the land of all vehicles, structures, notices and advertisement panels displayed in connection with the use of land as a car park and secure the land by physical means to prevent any continued use for car parking. The enforcement notices were served as a condition attached to a previous permission requiring the cessation of the use by February 2003. That condition was not complied with.

Main Issue

The main issues considered by the Inspector in the determination of these appeals were the impact of the continued use of the site for car parking on the regeneration of the area and the visual impact of the use.

The Inspector considered that a temporary car park in this location need not prevent development from coming forward. He was of the opinion that despite the delays in negotiations and the formulation if development proposals the appellants share the Council’s aspirations for the redevelopment of this site along with the other adjacent car park.

Another temporary consent was considered necessary to allow the appellants additional time to make progress in both assembling the sites and submitting a planning application.

In terms of visual impact, the Inspector was of the view that the appeal site is located on a major approach into Manchester City Centre. The car park presents a significant break in the street scene which has become more apparent as nearby land has been developed. The thrust of national, region and local planning policies support the redevelopment of the land for other purposes and outline the presumption against commuter car parks in such areas. The Inspector was satisfied that the car park is visually obtrusive, particularly in light of the redevelopment which has recently occurred in the area.

Notwithstanding the Inspector’s view that the car park is visually obtrusive and that the use of the site for car parking does not comply with the thrust of national, regional and local planning policy, he considered that, due to the ongoing construction of the Inner Relief Route, which runs through a small part of the appeal site, another temporary consent would be reasonable. It would allow additional time for land assembly and the formulation of redevelopment proposals.