PDC Agenda Item 3 - Additional Info Report - 12/02/09

PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE - 12 FEBRUARY 2009

ADDENDUM TO THE AGENDA:

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REPORT (INCLUDING SPEAKERS)

1.0INTRODUCTION

1.1This report summarises information received since the Agenda was compiled including, as appropriate, suggested amendments to recommendations in the light of that information. It also lists those people wishing to address the Committee.

1.2Where the Council has received a request to address the Committee, the applications concerned will be considered first in the order indicated in the table below. The remaining applications will then be considered in the order shown on the original agenda unless indicated by the Chairman.

2.0ITEM 4 – APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO DEVELOP, ETC.

REVISED ORDER OF AGENDA (SPEAKERS)

PART 1

Page 1H/58904, Land adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal, M60 and Trafford Boulevard, Urmston

SPEAKER(S)AGAINST:

FOR:Mr B Davidson

(Indigo Planning Ltd)

Applicant’s agent

CONSULTATIONS

GMPTE: Has submitted additional comments in the light of changed circumstances.

The submitted plans show the line of a ‘Metrolink protected corridor’ from the end of the proposed Trafford Park Metrolink extension, across the new ship Canal bridge. At the time of GMPTE’s original response to the planning application, no feasibility work had been undertaken on such an extension. However, as part of the Transport Infrastructure Fund (TIF) Bid, GMPTE undertook extensive scheme development work. One of the schemes subsequently included in the bid was a Metrolink extension from the Trafford Centre to Port Salford. A copy of the plan has been forwarded.

The TIF bid will not now proceed, following the referendum, which means that the schemes contained in it are subject to review. However, GMPTE would not wish to see the potential to deliver of any of these schemes being prejudiced, as alternative funding sources (as yet unknown) might be identified at some future date.

GMPTE therefore requests that an additional condition be added to the planning consent such that:

• The width of the protected corridor must be agreed with GMPTE and shall accommodate the subsequent installation of a future twin track Metrolink alignment.
• The bridge must be designed and constructed to a standard and size to be agreed with GMPTE suitable for the subsequent installation of a future segregated twin track Metrolink alignment without further structural modification.

OBSERVATIONS

It is already recommended within the report that conditions be attached which require that public transport facilities and routes, including both Metrolink and bus services, be provided within the proposed highway scheme and within the local highway network adjoining the scheme (conditions 14 and 24). GMPTE are requesting specifically that accommodation be made for a twin track Metrolink alignment whereas the existing proposals envisage single track working particularly across the bridge over the canal. However, there is no formally safeguarded route for Metrolink between the Trafford Centre and Port Salford. Conditions are also proposed which require that GMPTE be drawn into discussions with the applicants and Salford and Trafford and the Highways Agency as the detailed design of the scheme is worked up. Officers are discussing whether further amendments are required to the suite of recommended conditions and will report further at the meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

Condition 5 be amended to exclude drawing no M05013-A-041C Revision C as this is an illustrative drawing only and in any event specifically covered in Condition 13.

Page39 H/70220, 181 Higher Road, Urmston

SPEAKER(S)AGAINST:Mr C Wolohan

(177 Higher Road, Urmston)

On behalf of petitioners

FOR:

Page 43 H/70384, Vale Court, Hall Road, Bowdon

SPEAKER(S)AGAINST:Mr N Hinings

Neighbour

FOR:Mr J MacCall

On behalf of applicant

CONSULTATIONS

LHA – No objections on highways grounds.

Request that the applicant’s attention is drawn to the need to gain further approval from Trafford Council’s Streetworks Section for the construction, removal or amendment of a pavement crossing under the provision of section 184 of the Highways Act 1980.

The applicant must also ensure that adequate drainage facilities or permeable surfacing is used on the area of hard standing to ensure that localised flooding does not result from these proposals.

REPRESENTATIONS

7 further letters of objection received, summarised as follows:

• The changes to the plans are minor and do not address the concerns raised previously.
• The density/quantity of dwellings is out of keeping with the rest of the road and will be out of character and detrimental to the streetscene. The number of houses needs to be reduced to be acceptable.
• The buildings extend beyond the building line and are close to side boundaries, unlike the existing Vale Court and out of character with the rest of the road.
• Lack of green spaces at the front of the properties and limited lawn or planting provided overall.
• Proposal would over-dominate neighbouring properties.
• Proximity of development to Hedgeside will affect its presentation value, create a terraced effect in the road and have a detrimental effect on the level of light to the living area.
• Increase in traffic and on-street parking. Proposals would result in additional parking on the corner of Hall Road where visibility is restricted and cars will have to back out into Hall Road on a bend. Hall Road is used by parents who choose to park and walk with their children to the two local primary schools. Proposals would limit the available parking, cause congestion and result in unnecessary risk, especially to young children.
• Potential for collision of cars leaving the house opposite the site meeting those from the new houses where there is limited visibility due to a bend.
• Hall Road needs new street infrastructure investment to support any new homes.
• Both primary schools are already over-subscribed.
• Question why there is a requirement to change the use of the old people’s accommodation for which there is a demand, especially when low cost housing at The Lymes is half empty. Building a more appropriate old people’s home on the site would make sense in this area.
• The report on the consultation process is misleading and views of neighbours have been ignored.

Page54 H/70423, 231 Ashley Road, Hale

SPEAKER(S)AGAINST:Mrs Whitfield

Neighbour

FOR:

PROPOSAL

Revised plans submitted with windows in the sides of the projecting bay on the front corner of the building to address the issue raised at paragraph 21 of the main report. Also revised section drawing submitted to include the proposed basement.

REPRESENTATIONS

Neighbours – 6 letters objecting to the revised plans restating the concerns previously expressed including overdevelopment, overbearing, loss of amenity for residents, adverse impact on conservation area.

Hale Civic Society – Objects to the revised plans for reasons similar to those previously expressed.

OBSERVATIONS

The amendments put forward are acceptable and successfully address the concerns about potential future pressure on the tree.

RECOMMENDATION

Amend condition 2 as follows:-

Amended plans – 23 January 2009, 9 February 2009 and 11 February 2009.

Page70 H/70470, 55 The Avenue, Sale

SPEAKER(S)AGAINST:Mr T Berthou

(53 The Avenue, Sale)

FOR:

Amendment to reason for call in:

The application has been called in to the Planning Committee for decision by Councillor Holden who considers that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the street scene by reason of its massing and effect on the street scene.

APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION

The applicant has submitted further supporting information for the submission which is summarised as follows;

• The removal of the existing garage would improve light to no.53 and to re-build the garage on its current footprint would lead to construction difficulties and would not look visually attractive.
• The proposal is to be set far enough away from no.53 to allow plenty of room to ‘get a wheelie bin through’
• The overall extension has been designed in such a way that it will have no detrimental impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.
• There are already a number of other similar extensions elsewhere on The Avenue.

Page 75H/69777, Land bounded by Parkway, junction 9 M60 and southern boundary of the Trafford Centre

SPEAKER(S)AGAINST:Mr Munton

On behalf of residents

FOR:Mr R Wheeldon

(Peel Investments)

On behalf of applicants

Page94 H/70541, NorthCestrianGrammar School, Dunham Road, Altrincham

SPEAKER(S)AGAINST:Mr G Swindell

On behalf of neighbours

FOR:

CONSULTATIONS

Sports England – The application site does not include a playing field as defined 1996 Statutory Instrument no.1817.

There are a number of existing tennis courts located at the northern end of the school grounds and although the new school building would be located in relatively close proximity, it would not encroach onto these areas or impact upon their ability to be used.

As such, Sport England would not wish to raise an objection to the proposal.

REPRESENTATIONS

Neighbours – An additional letter has been received from a resident on Regent Road, raising concern regarding the proximity to Regent Road and its visibility.

Page100H/70612, Woodlands Day Nursery, 28 Ridgeway Road, Timperley

SPEAKER(S)AGAINST:Mr R Bullock

(5 Chatsworth Close, Timperley)

On behalf of petitioners

FOR:Mrs S Molnar

Applicant

Page 106H/70659Procter and Gamble, Trafford Park Road, TraffordPark,

M17 1NX

SPEAKER(S)AGAINST:

FOR:Mr M Williams

(Project Manager)

On behalf of applicants

CONSULTATIONS

Salford City Council - No objection.

Environmental Protection Service - Recommend a contaminated land condition be attached.

Page136H/69811, Land at Ambleside Road, Flixton

SPEAKER(S)AGAINST:P Jones

(78 Ambleside Road, Flixton)

On behalf of neighbours

FOR:Mr I Reed

(Chairperson)

On behalf of applicants

GMEU: As existing trees and scrub on the site are not going to be affected, there are no ecological issues with the proposals. The site is close to a pond and we would normally ask for a greater crested newt survey, however this is not necessary in this instance as the pond is heavily fished.

FROM THIS POINT ON REFER TO ORIGINAL AGENDA ORDER UNLESS INDICATED BY THE CHAIRMAN

Page 22H/67482,Windswood, 4 Park Road, Bowdon, WA14 3JF

PROPOSAL

Further plans and elevations received on 6 February 2009 clarifying the elevations and section details but not amending the proposed development.

APPLICANTS SUBMISSION

An amended tree report has been received. This indicates the retention of trees that were previously to be removed but proposes the removal of others – including a beech tree at the rear, that were previously to be retained. 8 trees are proposed for removal. Clarification has been sought with regard to the beech tree and its possible retention and the agents for the applicant have now confirmed that this beech tree will be retained. Other than that the level of tree removal is not of great concern and a requirement for new planting would compensate for the loss of smaller less important trees that have been identified for removal.

CONSULTATIONS

LHA - There are no objections to the revised access arrangements, the provision of a 4.5m access will enable simultaneous access/egress of the site. However, concern remains that if a high boundary was erected at the front of the site that this would restrict pedestrian visibility and potentially cause a pedestrian safety issue.

English Heritage - Does not wish to offer any comments and the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of the Council’s specialist conservation advice.

RECOMMENDATION

Amended conditions:-

2. Amended plans – 16 January 2009 and 6 February 2009

4. Tree protection No.1 – amend standard wording to commence with “Notwithstanding the submitted plans and amended tree report…..”

8. Provision of access facilities No.1 – details to be submitted including removal of boundary fencing above existing stone wall.

Additional condition:-

11. This planning permission does not grant or imply permission for the exiting or any other proposed front boundary fencing and/or gates and gateposts.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as no details of existing or proposed boundary treatments formed part of the application and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area having regard to Proposal ENV21, ENV23 and D1 of the Revised Trafford Unitary Development Plan.

Page 119H/70698Tall Trees/Oakleigh, Dunham Road, Bowdon, WA14 4QG

CONSULTATIONS

Built Environment (Drainage):- Swimming pool emptying/cleaning to go to foul sewer and not to exceed 5 litres per sec.

Request informatives be attached to decision.

REPRESENTATIONS

Letter of objection received from the Bowdon Conservation Group, main points raised:-

• Overdevelopment of site

• Use of previously quiet garden area for car-parking

• Neighbouring properties views of trees interrupted
• Obtrusive nature of new building
• Proposal would erode a peaceful woodland outlook
• No local need identified in application in relation to RSS
• Draft options on the Council’s Core Strategy state that urban areas of character would be protected.
• Density – Site should be looked at in the context with the Tall Trees site and the amount of hardsurfacing/foot print of house is greater than the 11% quoted in the Design and Access statement

DR. GARY PICKERING

DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

Simon Castle, Chief Planning Officer

Planning Department, P O Box No 96, Waterside House, Sale Waterside,

Sale, M33 7ZF

Telephone 0161 912 3111

- 1 -