AMENDMENTS/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF ... DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO THE PLANNING TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

AMENDMENTS/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES TO THE PLANNING TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MATTERS

PART I (AMENDMENTS)

SECTION 1 : APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20 th October 2005

APPLICATION No: 05/50754/REM

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

City Spirit Regeneration (Salf) Ltd _ Salford In Partnership

Land Bounded By Northumberland Street, Tully Street, Wellington Street

East And Rigby Street. Land Bounded By Tully Street, Bradshaw Street

North, Vincent Street, Devonshire Street And Bury New Road.

PROPOSAL: Details of the siting, design and external appearance of 70 houses and 38 apartments with associated car parking for phase 2 of the above development on land at Northumberland Street/Tully Street/Rigby

Street/Wellington Street East

WARD:

OBSERVATIONS:

Broughton

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS

Since writing my report, I have received an additional two letters. One does not raise any objections. The other raises matters which have already been addressed in my report, namely car parking and highway safety. I have no further comments to make in relation to these matters.

In addition to the above, I have some additional comments in relation to the financial contributions required.

The applicants have already entered into a S106 agreement requiring the contribution of £177,113 towards the provision and maintenance of areas of informal and formal open space within the vicinity of the site. The applicants will however have to enter into a new legal agreement to reflect the fact that there has been a more recent outline application has been approved, and to reflect this application. It will also need to reflect the fact that the new play area will be transferred to the Council for it to manage and maintain. I have attached the necessary condition.

It is therefore recommended that authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure the payment of £177,113 towards the provision and maintenance of open space within the vicinity of the site, and to secure the future maintenance of the play area.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

- 1 -

This reserved matters application represents the second phase of the redevelopment of this part of Higher

Broughton. Outline planning permission was granted in 2003 for residential development and the creation of a community hub and full planning permission was granted for the creation of sports pitches to replace the existing pitches at Northumberland Street.

This site relates to the eastern and southern sections of the former playing fields, fronting Tully Street and

Wellington Street East and the southern section of Rigby Street.

A total of 70 houses and 38 apartments would be constructed as part of this phase, which comprises three blocks – C, E and F. A total of 96 car parking spaces, including four disabled spaces and cycle parking facilities, would be provided within the site. The remainder of the site, comprising blocks A, B and D, was the subject of a separate reserved matters application which was approved in January 2005. Work is currently underway on that phase of the redevelopment.

The proposal comprises one and two bedroomed apartments and four, five, six and seven bedroomed properties. The buildings would be three and four storeys high. The design and layout of this site is similar to that already approved at blocks A, B and D. Across the majority of the site, private courtyards and garden areas would provide amenity space for residents at ground and first floor level. Residents’ parking areas would be provided below the first floor garden areas. These areas would be secure and would be surrounded by blocks of dwellings. The tree-lined footpath which surrounds the majority of the site and which will ensure that the majority of the existing trees surrounding the playing fields, would extend along most of the Tully Street frontage and the Rigby Street frontage. Along Wellington Street East, the proposed dwellings would each have a car parking space to the front, accessed directly from Wellington Street East.

As part of this proposal, a new play area would be provided within the site. This would front Tully Street and would be in a similar location to the former play area.

SITE HISTORY

In June 2005, outline permission was granted for the creation of a community hub, and for the means of access for the residential development, and full permission was granted for the construction of natural turf pitches and artificial mini pitches without complying with condition 16 (provision of sports pitches) on planning permission 03/47158/OUT (ref: 05/50310/OUT).

In January 2005, permission was granted for the siting, design, external appearance and landscaping of 50 houses and 22 apartments with associated car parking on land at Northumberland Street/Rigby Street (ref:

04/49292/REM).

In December 2003, full planning permission was granted for the construction of natural turf pitches and artificial mini pitches and outline permission granted for the erection of a community hub and the means of access of residential development (ref: 03/47158/OUT).

CONSULTATIONS

Director of Environmental Services – comments received. The Director of Environmental Services has concerns relating to the proximity of the proposed dwellings to the proposed new play area. He has therefore recommended that some of the properties closest to the play area have alternative forms of ventilation and acoustic dual glazing to their living rooms and that the garden area to one of the properties be surrounded by a

1.8m high close boarded fence, in order to reduce any noise and disturbance from the play area. He has also recommended that the hours of use of the play area be restricted to between 9am and 6.30pm.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objections.

- 2 -

United Utilities – no objections

Environment Agency – no objections

Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received to date

PUBLICITY

The application has been advertised by both press and site notices

The following neighbour addresses were notified:

1 – 9 (O), 6 – 8 (E) Ashbourne Grove

1 – 12 Bond Square

53 – 79 (O), 72 – 80 (E) Bradshaw Street

393 – 431 (O) Bury New Road

1 – 24 Newbury Place

Flats 1 – 36 Stoney Knoll, Bury New Road

The House that Jack Built, Greek Orthodox Church, Bury New Road

1 – 12 Cardiff Street

2 – 22 (E), 13 – 65 (O) Devonshire Street

Flats 1 – 18 Glover Field, Devonshire Street

2 – 8 (E) Dixon Avenue

1 – 45 (O), 2 – 50 (O) Hampshire Street

1 – 11 King Street

34 – 78 Rigby Street

Flats 1 – 32 The Beenstock Home, 19 – 21 Northumberland Street

60 – 68 Northumberland Street

1 – 10 Bramley Meade, Northumberland Street

Machzikei Hadass Synagogue, Northumberland Street

41, 43, 50 – 64 (E) Tully Street

1 – 14 Turner Street

1– 47 (O), 2 – 48 Vincent Street

2 – 12, 5, 7 Welbeck Grove

11, 13, 19 – 39 (O), 2 – 46 Wellington Street East

13, 17, 31, 33, 37, 41, 47 Wiltshire Street

2 – 8 (E) Acer Grove

1 – 8 Betula Gove

1 – 8 Buddleia Grove

1, 3 Clivia Road

1 – 25 (O) Legh Street

21 Broughton Mews, Legh Street

15 Cleveleys Grove

Day Nursery, Bradshaw Street North

19 – 63 (O), 42 – 52 Wiltshire Street

9 Northumberland Street

HPL Knoll Street

1 Bispham Grove

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received letters of objection from the residents of fifteen of the surrounding properties in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:

- 3 -

Noise and vibration from the work currently underway on the site

Development has commenced without planning permission

Powder is being sprayed on the playing fields which is covering surrounding houses

Insufficient car parking

There is a river below the playing fields

Hours of construction

The replacement playing fields and play area have not been provided

The proposed houses should front Tully Street and Northumberland Street

REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY

Site specific policies: none

Other policies: none

UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY


Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs

T13 – Car Parking

DEV2 – Good Design

REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY


Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development

A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments

DES1 – Respecting Context

DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours

INSPECTOR’S REPORT

Draft Policy DES1 – recommended only relatively minor amendments

Draft Policy DES7 – recommended that no modifications be made to this policy

Draft Policy H1 – recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains largely the same.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposed density and mix of dwellings is acceptable whether the design of the proposed dwellings is acceptable; whether there would be an impact on the amenity of residents as a result of the proposal; whether the proposed level of car parking is acceptable; and whether the proposed development complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised Deposit

Draft Replacement UDP. I shall deal with each in turn below.

Density and Dwelling Mix

Adopted Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city’s housing stock is able to meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford by promoting a number of measures, including the release of land to accommodate new house building.

Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.

- 4 -

It should be noted that the site had been allocated in the Draft UDP for housing under Policy H9/7. However, following the public inquiry, the Inspector has recommended that, given that outline planning permission has already been granted for the redevelopment of the site, and in order to ensure that the UDP is as up-to-date as possible, this site be deleted from the list of allocated sites.

The density of the proposed development would be approximately 61 dwellings per hectare. Condition 6 of the outline permission requires the density across the whole site to be a minimum of 35 dwellings per hectare. The density of the first phase of the housing development was 34.7 dwellings per hectare, giving an overall density for the site of 47 dwellings per hectare, which accords with Condition 6 and national government guidance in

PPG3.

The proposal includes a variety of dwelling types and sizes, including one and two bedroomed apartments and four, five, six and seven bedroomed houses. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate mix and accords with policies H1.

Design and Amenity

Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.

Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.

Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.

The rationale behind the design and layout of the proposed scheme reflect those of the first phase of the redevelopment. The applicants envisage the whole area having the image of a traditional terraced community, and, whilst the majority of the dwellings proposed are relatively large, this is a concept which has been achieved through this phase of the development. The area is to be of a relatively high density and the applicants aim to promote social inclusion and sustainability and encourage residents to move back into the area. The site is also intended to be permeable and pedestrian-orientated. This has been achieved through the use of ‘home zones’ and the inclusion of relatively narrow streets running through the site.

The applicants claim that rigid interface distances, such as the requirement to have a minimum of 21m between facing habitable room windows, can sometimes limit the ability to deliver high density development and that the quality of the external space can be enhanced through not applying such standards. The buildings have been pushed together in order to slow down traffic on the roads running through the site, to reduce the dominance of the car and to enable future residents to have a higher level of ownership over the spaces adjoining their properties. This in turn would have the added benefit of encouraging natural surveillance and thereby having the potential to reduce crime and the fear of crime. In some instances within this phase, there would be a minimum of 9m between the front elevations of facing properties. It is acknowledged that this is below the distance ordinarily required. However, there would be a minimum of 19m between the rears of properties, which are separated by the private courtyards and car parking areas. This would provide a much higher level of privacy and reduce overlooking between the rears of properties. In addition, in most instances in this phase of the development, not all of the windows on the front elevations of the proposed dwellings are to habitable rooms, as there are kitchens on the ground floors of many of the properties. Some screening would also be provided through the planting of trees within the home zones, which would further increase privacy. The proposed dwellings fronting Wellington Street East would directly face existing properties, the majority of

- 5 -

which are residential. There would however be a minimum of 23m between these properties, which I consider to be acceptable.

Although it is recognised that the distance between some facing habitable room windows of properties within the site is below the standards the Council ordinarily applied, I am of the opinion that this is acceptable in this instance, particularly given the nature of the scheme already approved at phase 1. I am also satisfied that there would be no unacceptable loss of privacy to existing residents as a result of this scheme. The proposal would have significant regenerative benefits and would result in improvements to the area. I am of the opinion that, in this instance, it would be detrimental to the scheme as a whole to apply the Council’s interface standards so rigidly. I therefore have no objections to the application in this regard.

The applicants have submitted samples of the materials to be used for the first phase, which, as they are of a suitably high quality and in keeping with the character of the area, have been approved. They have confirmed that they wish to use the same materials for this phase and I have therefore attached a condition requiring those materials to be used for this phase.

In light of the above, I consider that the regenerative benefits of the scheme and the innovative design outweigh the need for the development to accord with the Council’s privacy distances. I am satisfied that the application accords with the above policies.

Car Parking

Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards and that car parks are designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements, surface materials, boundary treatments and security measures.

Draft Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.

A total of 96 car parking spaces would be provided within the site, including four disabled spaces. Cycle parking would also be provided. Given the total number of apartments and houses proposed (108), the proposed level of car parking is acceptable, particularly given the site’s proximity to Bury New Road and a number of bus services. The proposed provision is in accordance with the maximum car parking standards advocated by the government in PPG13 and in the Draft UDP. The provision of cycle parking would encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with Draft Policy A10. I therefore have no objections to the application in this regard.

Other Issues

I have received a number of objections from local residents. The majority of the objections relate to noise and vibration from work which has taken place on the site. This work was required in association with the site investigations which, in accordance with a condition attached to the outline permission, was required to be undertaken prior to the commencement of the development. This work involved compacting, which was the source of the noise and vibration. The compacting has now ceased and I therefore have no objections to the application in relation to noise and vibration.

Other residents are concerned that development has commenced on site without planning permission. I can confirm that the development which has been undertaken on site relates to the first phase of the residential development, for which reserved matters approval was granted in January 2005. Any activity on this site is associated with the site investigations which have taken place and which are required in accordance with the outline consent as mentioned above.

- 6 -

Another issue raised by residents related to powder which was sprayed on the site. The applicants have confirmed that this was a chalk based powder used to soak up excess water due to rain or wet ground conditions and that has now all been completed.

Residents have raised concerns relating to a river which runs under the former playing fields. The applicants have confirmed that there is no river under the playing fields.

There is however a small culvert (drain) that crosses the site. This has however been diverted.

One of the residents has requested that the properties front Tully Street and Northumberland Street. The majority of the Northumberland Street frontage was covered by the previous application for phase 1. However, the majority of the properties adjacent to Northumberland Street and Tully Street and within this application site would front these roads.

Finally, in relation to issues raised by local residents, a number of residents have raised concerns relating to the hours of construction. Such matters are controlled by separate legislation and, given that any noise or disturbance would be for a temporary period only, I do not therefore consider it necessary or appropriate to attach a condition restricting the hours of construction.

The applicants have already entered into a Section 106 agreement relating to the provision of public open space, which requires a combination of on-site provision and a financial contribution towards provision in the vicinity of the area. The proposed play area would constitute the on-site provision. The play area would be managed and maintained by the Council, rather than by the applicant, and the applicant will therefore need to enter into a legal agreement reflecting this.

VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT

Following discussions with the applicant, disabled car parking and cycle parking have been provided within the site. The location of the apartment block adjacent to Wellington Street East has been amended and the associated car parking located to the rear, rather than adjacent to Wellington Street East, in order to improve the relationship to the street scene. Entrances into the apartment blocks from the street have also been included in order to create more active frontages.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I consider that this proposal represents an innovative scheme which will have significant regenerative benefits for the area. It incorporates a mix of dwelling types and sizes, the design of which is of a high standard. The distances between properties has been adequately justified and I do not consider that residents would be unacceptably detrimentally affected as a result. The application accords with the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

It is recommended that authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure the future maintenance of the play area.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve Subject to the following Conditions

- 7 -

1. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the following materials shall be used for the external elevations and roofs of the properties hereby approved:

Baggeridge Red Dragface

Ibstock Calderstone Claret

Redland Cambrian Slate - Slate Grey

Permarock render - Grey 25

Reconstituted stone - Portland

2. Prior to the commencement of the development, a scheme detailing which of the materials specified within

Condition 1 of this permission are to be used for each of the properties hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

3. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, there shall be no bedroom, living room or dining room windows within the gable of the dwelling at plot E19.

4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the living rooms of the properties at

Plots E16-E19 shall be fitted with alternative forms of ventilation to the standard of the Noise Insulation

Regulation 1988 (as amended) and shall be capable of having a ventilation rate of 37 litres per second. Such forms of ventilation shall be fitted prior to first occupation of the properties and retained thereafter.

5. The play area hereby approved shall only be used between the hours of 9am and 6.30pm

6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme providing full details of the fence to the garden area of the dwelling at plot E20, which shall be a minimum of 1.8m in height and close boarded, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved fence shall be erected prior to first occupation of the dwelling and retained thereafter.

7. The glazing to the living room windows within the dwellings at Plots E16-E19 shall be 6 mm 12mm 6mm air - glass - air. Such glazing shall be installed prior to first occupation of these dwellings and retained thereafter.

8. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the play equipment shown on drawing no. O2653 B40 Revision C (and any subsequent revisions) shall meet the requirements of BSEN1176 and the surfacing within the play area shall meet the requirements of BSEN1177.

9. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the cycle storage areas shown on drawing no (08) 001 Rev M (or any subsequent revisions approved by the Local Planning Authority) in relation to Blocks C, E and F shall be provided and made available for use prior to first occupation of any of units within each respective Block.

10. The development permitted by this reserved matters permission shall not be started by the undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4)(a)-(d) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 until a

Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide for the transfer of the play area to the Local Planning

Authority and for the provision of a commuted sum as required by policies H6 and H11 of the City of

Salford Adopted UDP, Policy H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP, SPG7 Provision of

Open Space and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development

(Reasons)

- 8 -

1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area


3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents


5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours



8. To ensure that the equipment is of sufficient standard.

9. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with Policy A10 of the

Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP.

10. Reason: To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP, Policy H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP and SPG7 Provision of Open Space and Recreation Space

Associated with New Residential Development

Note(s) for Applicant

1. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the amended plans received on 4th October 2005 which show the inclusion of disabled and cycle parking facilities.

2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the Council.

3. The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities regarding connections to the sewers and site drainage.

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

WARD:

OBSERVATIONS:

05/50794/FUL

Mr And Mr A Owen

Rear Garden Area Of 3 Shaving Lane Worsley M28 7QL

Erection of a detached dwelling

Walkden South

- 9 -


Since writing my report I have received two additional letters of objection. The letters do not raise any new issues and reiterate the comments of previous letters received in response to the application publicity.

The City Councils drainage engineer has no objection to the proposal subject to a condition requiring a drainage scheme to design out flood risk. I have attached a condition requiring the drainage to be approved in writing prior to the commencement of development.

At the meeting of the panel held on the 6 th October 2005 consideration of this application was DEFERRED

FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.

My previous observations are set out below:


This application relates to the rear garden of a detached property and seeks consent to erect a new detached dwelling.

The garden of the existing house is set at two levels. The proposal would be placed at right angles to the existing house. The ground floor footprint, although larger than the first floor is designed in such a way as to conceal it within the natural slope of the land.

The design of the proposal would comprise of two distinct elements. A two storey element would be orientated east west with a bisecting single storey element. The two storey element would be ‘off set’ to the angle of the ground floor to utilise the shape of the site and introduce a contemporary design. Furthermore, it would include floor to ceiling height windows and doors and palette of materials including zinc, brickwork and render.

The main two storey element would measure 7.5m at the ridge and 5m at the eaves. The footprint measures

19.3m (l) X 15.2m (w) at it largest points.

Vehicular access would be provided in part by the existing driveway of 3 Shaving Lane and a section of landscaping between 2 and 3 Shaving Lane.

CONSULTATIONS

The Director of Environmental Services – No objection

The Environment Agency – No objection

PUBLICITY


175, 177A, 177-183 (o) Walkden Road

1, 2 and 4 Shaving Lane

26 – 32 (e) Maple Grove

6 – 16 (e) Edge Fold Crescent

REPRESENTATIONS

- 10 -

I have received ten letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:-

Overbearing

Loss of privacy

Loss of aspect

Architectural style not in keeping

Impact of vehicular access

Impact on surrounding neighbouring properties

Additional cars – impact on Walkden Road / impact on Shaving Lane

Loss of trees already

Would set a precedent

Damage to wildlife


Site specific policies: None

Other policies: None


Site specific policies:

Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design, H1 Meeting Housing Needs,

T13 Car Parking



Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, H1 Provision of New Housing Development, A10 Provision of Car,

Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Development.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the development, whether the design, scale and massing of the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the development plan and whether the car parking, access and privacy distances are acceptable.

The Principle of Residential Development



National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing states that infilling in existing residential areas can make a useful contribution to housing provision, but acknowledges the need to ensure that the character and amenity of such areas is not damaged.

Given that the PPG3 identifies infill in existing residential areas as a way of contribution to the provision of housing, I consider that the general principle of a new dwelling in this location to be acceptable.

- 11 -

Design, Layout and Siting

Adopted Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision.


Adopted Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors including the provision of security features.


Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.

Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.

With regard to the design I consider this to be of high quality. I consider that this is a well thought out and well executed scheme that will satisfy the policy requirements of PPG3 and maintain the Council’s normal privacy requirements.

Turning to issues raised in relation to crime. I do not consider that this proposal would result in the rear gardens of Edge Fold Crescent vulnerable to instances of crime. The scheme does not include any form of access other than from Shaving Lane. Moreover, I consider that a new dwelling would represent additional natural surveillance.

The siting of the scheme is such that the main aspects are to the south and west, which over look the larger areas of proposed garden. The proposal would maintain 25m to the rear of those properties on Maple Grove and a minimum 9m to the rear garden. It would also maintain 29m to the rear elevations of the closest properties on

Edge Fold Crescent. There are no main habitable windows within this element of the proposal. The entrance would be oriented to the north. This elevation would, at its closest, maintain 10m to the common boundary with 2 Shaving Lane. A distance of 16.5m would be maintained to the main element of the existing property.

I am satisfied that these distances are in excess of those privacy distances ordinarily required. Moreover, the proposal would maintain sufficient distance to the common boundaries to provide adequate aspect to the future occupiers of the proposal. As such I do not consider that the proposal would result in a loss of privacy to either the existing neighbouring residents or the future occupiers of the scheme.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding siting, layout and design.

Trees

Policy EN7 encourages the conservation of trees and woodland through supporting the retention of trees and aims to ensure that new tree planting is designed to contribute to landscape quality.

- 12 -

Policy EN10 of the Revised Replacement Plan states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of trees will not be permitted.

A number of trees have been removed prior to the submission of this application. None of these trees had been afforded the protection of preservation order. There are a number of trees within the surrounding gardens.

The City's arboricultural consultant has inspected the site and advises that using the guidance contained within

Table 1 of BS5837 a distance of 6.0m should be left undisturbed from the centre of both trees within the garden of 2 Shaving Lane. For the tree closest to the drive this impinges on the new drive. However both these trees are in good condition, have normal vigour and ample room for root development in other directions. Therefore it is appropriate to reduce this distance by one-third on one side only in accordance with para 7.5.5 of BS5837, this takes it down to 4.0m and allows for the drive as proposed. Neither tree is within the 3.6m separation distance specified in the Council adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for trees.

It is not considered that the trees would be affected by this proposal. The arboricultural consultant recommends that protective fencing should be installed prior to any work commencing on site. I have attached a condition accordingly.

Whilst I acknowledge that trees have been removed from the site prior to the submission of the first application, they were not protected by a preservation order and no consent was required to fell them.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding trees.

Car Parking and Access



The access to the proposal would utilise a section of the existing driveway and a section landscaping between 2 and 3 Shaving Lane. There are no habitable windows contained within the gable closest to the proposed access point. The closest element of the neighbouring property to the proposed access is the attached garage. As such

I do not consider that the position of the access would result in a loss of amenity to this neighbour.

I do not consider that the addition of one detached property would generate a significant level of vehicular movements. Moreover, I have no highway objection in relation to additional traffic onto Walkden Road or

Shaving Lane.

As such, I am satisfied that the proposal would accord with the adopted and replacement plan policies in this instance.

Remaining Issues

One of the objectors is concerned that this application would set a precedent for future similar schemes. All planning applications are however determined with regard to the development plan policies and other material considerations. Should this application be approved it would not represent a precedent allowing surrounding properties to do likewise, but it would constitute a material consideration when determining any other similar applications in the future.

- 13 -


The applicant’s agent entered into pre-application discussion, which have resulted in a high quality scheme.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the design of the proposal is of a high standard and acceptable within this residential context. I am also satisfied that the siting of the proposal would maintain a sufficient level of privacy to the surrounding residential properties and future occupiers. As such I recommend that the proposal be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:


1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit

2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the external elevations of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.

3. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the external elevations of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.

3. No development shall be started until all the trees overhanging the site have been surrounded by substantial fences which shall extend to the extreme circumference of the spread of the branches of the trees within the development site (or such positions as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority). Such fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by the

Local Planning Authority and shall remain until all development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.

(Reasons)

1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91




1. The application site lies within 250 metres of a former reservoir. According to our records the reservoirs are no longer present, suggesting they have been in filled. However, we have no information on the types of materials that may have been used as fill. Any infill has the potential to produce a gas risk. As such, the development may be at risk from migrating gas and new pathways may be created during the construction of the development. I would therefore recommend the following advisor.

- 14 -

The responsibility to properly address contaminated land issues, including safe development, irrespective of any action taken by this authority, lies with the owner/developer of the site. The applicant/developer is requested to contact the Council's Public Protection Unit (Tel: 0161 737 0551) as soon as is practicable should contamination be encountered during development of the site.


APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

05/51128/REM

Westbury Homes

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

Site Of Former Kwiksave Store Fairhills Road Irlam M30 6BA

Details of the siting, design and external appearance of 91dwellings together with associated landscaping, car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access (resubmission of previous application 05/50560/REM)

WARD:

OBSERVATIONS:

Cadishead

AMENDMENT REPORT

Since writing my report I have received additional comments from the Council’s landscape architect. The scheme proposed is considered to be acceptable in principle subject to a change in the layout to reflect the amended scheme. I recommend a condition to require an amended scheme.

The submitted noise report assesses noise impacts from Cadishead Way, Fairhills Road and Kingsland Wines and Spirits. The report concludes that road noise would be audible to a level that requires mitigation when assessed against PPG24. Mitigation proposed includes acoustic glazing to habitable rooms for some properties and acoustic fencing to some rear garden areas. I recommend a condition to require such mitigation measures as detailed within the noise report are installed prior to occupation of the dwellings.

The applicant has confirmed he is designing a sustainable urban drainage system for the development in accordance with condition attached to the outline approval.


This application relates to a 2.42 hectare site. The site is bordered by Cadishead Way to the east, Fairhills Road to the south and a residential development site which is still under construction to the north and west. All the houses abutting this site have been completed. To the south of the site is the Kingsland’s Wines and Spirits industrial premises. This application site was last in use for retail (Kwik Save and Iceland) with associated car parking and servicing. Members will recall that outline planning permission, with all matters reserved, was granted in February this year for residential development.

This application seeks reserved matters approval for the siting, design, external appearance, landscaping and means of access of 91 dwellings. The proposed mix of dwellings includes 22 five-bed detached houses, 15

- 15 -

four-bed detached houses, 30 three-bed semi/terraced houses and 24 two-bed flats in three blocks. The houses and apartments are a mixture of two, two and a half and three storeys in height.

The sole vehicular access to the site utilises the existing access from Fairhills Road at the south west corner of the site. An estate road loops around the site with a joint bicycle and footpath connecting the site to Cadishead

Way at the north eastern corner of the site.

Houses and apartment blocks have been positioned to face Fairhills Road, whilst housing also backs onto

Cadishead Way. The developer proposes to finish some housing in red brick, some in yellow and some with rendered finish. Separation distances within the site are generally less than those required by Council standards.

Parking levels are at least 100% for the development. Boundary treatment to Fairhills Road is proposed to be a

0.6 metre high wall with 0.5m high decorative railings atop. Rear boundaries to Cadishead Way are 1.8m high fencing with 0.3m high trellis on top.

The application has been submitted with a noise report which states that attenuation to windows and acoustic screens to gardens is required to mitigate against noise impacts.

SITE HISTORY

In February 2005, outline planning permission was approved for residential development (04/49633/OUT).

In June 2005, a reserved matters application for the siting, design and external appearance of 87 dwellings was refused (05/50560/REM). Seven reasons for refusal were given; 1) impact upon trees on Cadishead Way, 2) inward looking street scene along Fairhills Road, 3) regimented parking layout not creating a sense of place, 4) loss of privacy, overshadowing and amenity to neighbouring properties, 5) four parking spaces at the site entrance detrimental to highway safety, 6) footpath link not wide enough to accommodate bicycles, and 7) lack of defensible space.

CONSULTATIONS

Environment Agency – No objections. Recommend adding an informative regarding the safeguarding within 8 metres of Platts Brook and new surface water outfalls should be agreed with the Environment Agency.

GM Police Architectural Liaison Unit – object to the permeability of the site with access available for escape of criminals and recommends redesign to ensure development is accessed from either Fairhills Road or the estate road. Also objects to the layout where parking spaces are not overlooked, requires clear boundaries between dwellings, would prefer a leaking cul-de-sac be stopped up, and requires boundary fencing to be 2.1m where they join public space and requires defensible space around the units. The unit also recommends a lighting scheme for the development to British Standards.

GMPTE – No comments to add to the comments raised in the outline application, where

GMPTE required the development to be laid out in such a way to allow for bus routing.

United Utilities - No objections to the proposal, providing that the site is drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected to the foul sewer. Surface water should be discharged to the watercourse/soakaway/surface water sewer and may require the consent of the Environment Agency. A

1300mm diameter public sewer crosses the south of the site and United Utilities will not permit building over it and access strip of not less than 12m wide will be required. A United Utilities electricity substation is located within the site, the applicant should therefore check land ownership/access rights.

Director of Environmental Services – No comments received on this application, however comments received on the outline.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on 31 August 2005


- 16 -

2 – 46 even Rixtonleys Drive

1 – 7 odd Calamanco Way

8 – 26 even Calamanco Way

2 – 36 even Stickens Lock Lane

Kingsland Wines and Spirits, Fairhills Road

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no letters of representation.


DP3 Quality in New Development



Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H6 & H11 Open

Space Provision Within New Housing Developments



Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime,

A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, EN9 Important Landscape

Features, H1 provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New

Housing Developments

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issues relating to this application are the suitability of the access, the design and density of the proposed housing, impact upon amenity of existing and future occupiers, impact upon trees, issues of design and crime and open space and children’s play space provision.

Policy DEV1 gives a list of criteria including sunlight and privacy that should be considered when assessing applications. Policy DES7 also requires that residential amenity is considered for users and neighbours. DES1 and DEV2 require good design in developments. Policies H4 and H11 relate to designing out crime. Policy H1 requires housing at an appropriate density for the site. Policy EN9 requires landscape features such as trees are retained wherever possible. H6, H11 and H8 require open space to be set out on site or off site through a commuted sum.

Density, Separation and Design

The Inspectors report on the UDP public inquiry advises that policy H1 should be amended to require at least

30 units per hectare on a site such as this. The development is laid out at 38 units per hectare, and includes a mix of dwelling types, which I consider to be appropriate. The layout provides a minimum of 21 metres separation distance between facing habitable rooms to existing houses outside the site. Within the site separation distances between facing habitable rooms are lower, some at 17metres.

- 17 -

The applicant explains within the design statement that the layout and disposition of buildings has been designed to create a sense of place in accordance with Government guidance. Government guidance, PPS1, also explains rigid separation distances should not be imposed where they would stifle good innovative design.

I am satisfied that the proposed separation distances of the development accord with Council’s policies.

I also consider that the variation of height of proposed houses, the mix of house types and the mix of materials to be appropriate for the site. The applicant has shown a range of materials including stone cills and lintels and gable vents and whilst I am happy with the principle of such details I recommend a condition requiring that materials are submitted and agreed. I am also satisfied that the applicant has sought to front properties onto

Fairhills Road and thus will bring activity to the road.

The application was submitted with a distance of 4m from trees on Cadishead Way to the apartment blocks. The application has been amended to move the apartments further away from the trees. I am satisfied that the distance of 8.5m will allow the treescape to be retained during construction and with regard to future people pressure.

Access and Parking

The applicant proposes to utilise and modify the existing access from Fairhills Road. Each unit has at least one off street parking space with the five bed houses having double garages. The applicant also proposes to modify the existing cycle and pedestrian path at the north-eastern corner of the site. The proposed cycle/footpath is between two proposed houses and will allow improved access to the cycle and footpaths along Cadishead Way.

Neither cycle parking or disabled parking is identified within or adjacent to the apartments. I recommend a condition be attached to require a scheme be submitted for cycle parking and disabled parking. I also suggest a condition to require details of recycling and bin store facilities. I consider the layout of the estate could potentially allow for bus routing.

Design and Crime

The Architectural Liaison Unit submitted concerns over a number of factors. The heights of boundary fencing have been increased to 2.1m by adding 300mm of trellis to 1.8m high fencing. I consider the position of proposed dwellings does provide natural surveillance around the site. I also consider it important that the development does not turn its back on Fairhills Road by presenting 2.1m high fencing along this principal road.

I consider the proposed layout satisfactorily addresses Fairhills Road, with housing and flats fronting onto it, and that suitable boundary treatments and defensible are proposed to seek to minimise opportunities for crime.

I consider these amendments are appropriate with reference to policies DEV4 and DES11.

Open Space Provision

The outline permission included a condition requiring the development to be laid out in accordance with policies H6 and H11. The developer has sought to maximise development on site and to provide off site facilities through a commuted sum. This approach is in accordance with policies H6, H11 of the adopted plan and H8 of the deposit draft plan. SPG7 Open Space associated with New Housing Developments provides a cost based on bedspaces for an off site contribution. The development includes 399 bedspaces which equates to a commuted sum value of £188,766.


1.

Significant improvements to the layout of the development have resulted since the previous refusal of reserved matters (05/50560/REM).

2.

Each of the reasons for refusal has been addressed through this amended application.

3.

An objector to the previous application, on the basis of loss of residential amenity, is satisfied with this layout.

4.

The layout and design have been significantly improved over the processing of this and application

05/50560/REM.

5.

S106 of £188,766 for open space, children’s play space and environmental improvements

- 18 -

CONCLUSION

The principle for housing has been established through the outline approval. I am satisfied that the density, layout and detailed design of the housing and apartments is in accordance with Council policies. Furthermore I find the access and level of parking acceptable and also the relationship with trees along Cadishead Way.

Whilst the Architectural Liaison unit still offer concerns over the siting of houses I find the layout acceptable given the streetscene benefits and defensible space proposed. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

- 19 -

Should members be minded to approve this application an associated resolution is also sought to allow the City

Council to enter into a Section 106 agreement. That the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play equipment.

RECOMMENDATION:


1. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials

2. Standard Condition F05D Provision of Parking

3. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a scheme for the approval of the

Local Planning Authority which shall detail secured and covered cycle parking, disbaled parking, bin stores and recycling facilities. Once approved such a scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved.

4. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4)(a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 until a

Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a commuted sum as required by Policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP 1995, H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003 and SPG7

Provision of Open Space and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes.

5. Prior to the commencement of development and notwithstanding the details already submitted a revised landscape scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented within 12 months of the commencement of development or in phases as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter shall be maintained.

Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced.

6. The noise mitigation measures proposed in the submitted AEC report dated 22nd August 2005 shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the associated residential unit hereby approved and shall be thereafter maintained.

(Reasons)



3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford

Unitary Development Plan and to esnure appropraite cycle and disabled parking provision in accordance with policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft UDP.

4. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP 1995 and H8 of the

- 20 -

Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.



1. This application relates to the amended layout plan EL:283:00:01H.

2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment Agency.

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

05/51243/COU

D Lewis

145 The Green Worsley M28 2PA

Change of use of rear access to garden area and the demolition of garden wall and rebuilding 2m high wall and erection of 2m high access gates

WARD: Worsley

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS:

This report has been updated to make reference to the erection of walls.

OBSERVATIONS:


The application is for the change of use of land to the rear of the property (Grade II) to provide an extended garden area and the erection of two walls and two gates measuring 2m in height and the erection of a 2m high wall within the side garden of 145 The Green. The garden extension would extend across the existing rear access, which also runs behind the properties between 140 and 149 The Green. The access is not a definitive right of way. Beyond the rear access is Worsley Boat Yard. An application for Listed Building Consent appears elsewhere on this agenda.

CONSULTATIONS

Worsley Civic Trust and Amenity Society - no comments received to date.

PUBLICITY

The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.


140 - 149, The Boathouse the Dock House The Green

- 21 -

The Old Boat Yard, Worsley Road, Worsley

Wharfside, Worsley Boatyard

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received no letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The application is before the Planning and Transportation

Regulatory Panel due to the applicant being a Councillor.



Other policies: DEV1-Development Criteria

EN11-Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas

EN12 – Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings



Other policies: CH2-Works to Listed Buildings

CH5-Works Within Conservation Area


Draft Policy CH5 - The report of the Planning Inspector into the objections to the replacement plan has suggested two minor wording amendments. Those are to replace “preserve or enhance” in the policy and reasoned justification with “preserve and enhance.” No other amendments are recommended. As such I consider that this policy can be afforded significant weight.

Draft Policy CH2 – The report of the Planning Inspector into the objections to the replacement plan has suggested that Policies CH2 and CH3 are combined into one policy. The policy would refer to Works To. And

Demolition of Listed Buildings. The inspector has added criteria to the policy, as such I consider that the policy can be afforded significant weight.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

The main planning issue relating to this application is the principle of the change of use and its impact on the character and appearance of Worsley Village

Conservation Area and whether the proposal accords with the provisions of the development plan.

Adopted Policy EN11 and Draft Policy CH5 states that the Council will seek to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

I would not consider the change of use of an existing passageway to the rear of the property to have an unacceptable detrimental impact on character of the Conservation Area.

Adopted Policy EN12 states that that the City Council will only permit development that does not detract from the architectural and historic character of a Listed Building. Draft Policy CH2 states that proposals involving the alteration or change of use of a listed building will only be permitted where they would preserve or enhance the character and features of

- 22 -

special architectural or historic interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing. As per the Inspectors Report he recommends that alterations of a listed building be considered in relation to the importance of the listed building, particular physical features, contribution to local street scene and benefits to the community.

It is intended to demolish the existing rear boundary wall to enable the garden to be extended to the rear, to include the existing rear access that runs from

No’s. 140 to 149 The Green. Two walls and gates would be erected at either end of the passage on both side boundaries of the application site. The walls and gates combined would measure 1.8m wide with a height of 2m. The walls would be constructed from antique brick with wrought iron gates. A 2m high wall constructed from antique brick would be erected in the side garden of

145 The Green. It would extend from the existing side elevation of the property to the boundary of No.146 The Green. The wall would have diamond details within it. The proposed walls and gates are designed to a high quality and respect the context of the surrounding area. I have attached a condition requesting samples of materials prior to the commencement of development to ensure the proposal is built to a high quality.

The change of use of land to the rear for inclusion within the domestic curtilage has already been granted to some properties along The Green, including 143, 146 and 149 The Green. I therefore would not consider the current proposal would have an unacceptable detrimental impact upon the setting of the listed building and that the change of use of land is fully in accordance with Adopted Policy EN12 and Draft Policy CH2.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the listed building or the character of the conservation area. I consider that the development accords fully with the provisions of the adopted unitary development plan and the revised deposit draft replacement plan. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:


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

2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for the proposed walls shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning

Authority.

(Reasons)


2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building

- 23 -

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

05/51282/FUL

The David Ellwood Lever Sipp

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

48 Park Road Salford 6

Demolition of existing office building and erection of one three storey building comprising nine apartments together with associated car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access

WARD:

OBSERVATIONS:

Weaste And Seedley

Since writing the panel report Cllr Ainsworth has made additional comments on the following aspects of the proposal –

Car parking and access–

The driveway and gated access inhibit users of car parking space number 1 (located to the front of the property) from entering/leaving the site in a forward gear.

The driveway is not wide enough to allow two way flow of traffic

The location of Park Road in close proximity to Hope Hospital means that existing on road car parking space is already under pressure and as a result residents only parking scheme and a restricted waiting bay have been introduced. Consequently Cllr Ainsworth is of the opinion that on site parking provision is inadequate as there is no provision for visitors and the possible demand for car parking by residents of the proposed apartments could exceed supply as the proposed apartments are all 2 bed and only 9 spaces are provided.

Cllr Ainsworth has also requested that members are made aware of the proposed changes to policy A10 advocated by the Inspector in their review of the revised deposit draft replacement plan namely the addition of a penultimate paragraph that states “ Car parking provision in residential developments will be assessed on a case by case basis, having regard to the type and accommodation of the properties, their location, the availability of and proximity to public transport, the availability of shared parking facilities, and the existing level of on street parking. Development with more than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling or unit of accommodation, averaged over the city area, is unlikely to be regarded as sustainable ”.

Dwelling type – The most appropriate from of new residential development that would contribute to a balanced mix of housing in the area would be larger family houses not the apartments proposed.

Design – The attractiveness of the design is a matter of subjective opinion. If any new building is to make as distinctive a contribution to the streetscape and contribute to the present eclectic mix of styles present along

Park Road then it should be more 'modernistic' and 'purist' design.

- 24 -

Contribution to open space within the area - Policy H8 applies and therefore the developer should make a contribution, via a section 106 agreement, to open space provision within the area, particularly given that the locality is identified within the UOSS as being deficient in formal and informal recreation space and the development would create additional demand for open space.

Cllr Ainsworth has also asked that a note be made of his lack of awareness of vandalism to the building despite being both a local resident and a local

Councillor.

In the light of these observations and those made previously Cllr Ainsworth has requested that the conditions that require the following are attached –

A contribution to the provision and or maintenance of public open space in the vicinity of the site.

Either a contribution to the introduction of a residents parking scheme or a restriction on the number of car owning residents that can occupy the apartments together with a ban on occupants of the proposed apartment obtaining residents parking permits.

Details of the proposed cycle store and bin stores.

The driveway and car park to be surfaced in paviors.

A revision to the proposed car-parking layout to ensure compliance with the minimum standards for disabled spaces

A revision to the front elevation, which involves the removal of the ground floor French doors and the insertion of traditional windows.

My Additional Observations

Policy H8 seeks to secure new open space or open space improvements as part of new housing developments and is to be read in conjunction with the Council Supplementary Planning Guidance on Open Space Provision that provides details of when a contribution to open space provison is required and what the contribution should be. It states that the policy only applies to developments that encorporate 50 or more bedspaces (the number of bedspaces in each dwelling/apartment being equal to the number of bedrooms plus one). In this case 27 bedspaces would be provided, insufficient to trigger the requirement for open space provison and therefore I cannot attach a condition that requires a contribution to open space provision in the locality.

Attaching a condition restricting the number of car owning residents of the proposed apartments would not satisfy the 6 tests of a condition as such a condition would not be reasonable nor would it be enforceable. A condition requiring a contribution to the introduction of additional residents car parking would not satisfy the 6 tests either as it would not be reasonable as the proposed development would not generate significant traffic or parking demand.

Details of the proposed cycle stores have already been provided and a condition has been attached that requires the details of the proposed bin stores to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development.

Similarly a landscaping condition has been attached which requires details of any proposed surface treatments to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development.

With regards to the provision of disabled car parking the standards in the revised deposit draft replacement plan state that 5% of the total number of parking spaces provided should be suitable for use by disabled persons. To

- 25 -

be suitable spaces should be 3.6m wide. 9 spaces will be provided on site and therefore 1 disabled space should be provided. The proposed car-parking layout does not currently include any spaces suitable for use by disabled persons.

It can however be amended in order to incorporate 1 space and therefore I have added a condition requiring a revised car parking layout that incorporates

1 disabled space to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development.

I do not feel that it is necessary to revise the design of the proposed apartments.

An additional letter of representation has also been received since the writing of the attached report. The writer does not raise any new issues to those already highlighted.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The application site comprises of a vacant three-storey office building together with and a single storey outbuilding to the rear. The site fronts onto Park Road and is bounded on three sides by residential properties.

Vehicular access into the site is from Park Road.

The proposed L shaped building would be three storeys in height. It would be a minimum of 5m from the back of the footpath on Park Road. It would be set in 1m from the boundary with 50 Park Road and would run for 16m along this boundary. It would have a 16m frontage along Park Road. It would be 7.3m to the eaves and 10.8m to the ridge. A total of nine car parking spaces would be provided to the rear of the proposed building and vehicular access into the site would be gained from Park Road. A cycle storage area would also be provided within the site.

SITE HISTORY

An application for the demolition of the existing offices and the erection of a three-storey building comprising of 9 apartments together with associated landscaping was submitted in May 2005 (Ref – 05/50659/FUL). This application was withdrawn in June 2005.

PUBLICITY

A site notice was displayed on the 13 th of September 2005.


37 to 43m (odd) Park Road

50 to56 (even) Park Road

St Peter & St Paul Church, Park Road

1 and 3 Tandis Court

6 to 18 (even) Tandis Court

9 to 17 (odd) Tandis Court

21 Victoria Road

63 to 79 (odd) Victoria Road

77 and 83 St Georges Crescent

- 26 -

209 Eccles Old Road

Gilda Brook Post Offices, 258 Eccles Old Road.

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 12 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity, including one from Councillor Ainsworth. The following issues have been raised:-

Inadequate plans that are difficult to understand

6.

Loss of a building with lots of character that makes a positive contribution to the area

7.

The building should be reused for office purposes – Salford does not need any more apartments but more affordable family accommodation and more specifically in this area accommodation for hospital workers.

8.

The building should be reused as according to the Inspector’s report priority should be given to the re-use of buildings that are sound and worthy of re-use.

9.

Disruption during the construction period

10.

Loss of view

11.

12.

13.

Loss of light

Overshadowing

Loss of privacy

14.

15.

16.

Inadequate parking provision

Over-development of the site

Insufficient amenity space for future residents

17.

Failure to provide a separate pedestrian access will result in conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular traffic to the detriment of pedestrian safety

18.

Insufficient space to maintain the side if the building that runs along the boundary with 50 Park Road

19.

Impact on trees

Disruption during the construction period and loss of view are not material planning considerations, nor is future maintenance of the building.

Cllr Ainsworth also raised concerns about the position of the gated access and its relationship to car parking space number 1 which would, in his opinion, inhibit users of space 1 to enter and leave the site in a forward gear, thus causing highway safety concerns.

Councillor Ainsworth has also requested that members consider a site visit in order to appreciate the scale and context of what is proposed (and the difficulties likely to impact on existing residents) and to respond to the significant amount of local opposition, as many residents cannot attend this meeting.


Other policies: Site specific policies: none

Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs

DEV1 – Development Criteria

DEV2 – Good Design

- 27 -

DEV4 – Design and Crime

T13 – Car Parking



Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development

DES1 – Respecting Context

DES11 – Design and Crime

A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments

ST11 Location of New Development


Draft Policy H1 - recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains largely the same.

Draft Policy DES1– recommended only relatively minor amendments

Draft Policy DES11 - recommended no changes to this policy.

Draft Policy A10 - recommended only relatively minor amendments

ST11 – recommended re-wording to give priority to the re-use/conversion of existing buildings where they are sound and worthy of reuse and/or of architectural or historic interest and their re-use is effective.

PLANNING APPRAISAL

I consider the main issues in the determination of the application to be: whether the principle of the use is acceptable; whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents; whether the design of the proposed building is acceptable; whether the proposed level of car parking is acceptable; whether the proposal would be satisfactorily secure; and whether the proposed development accords with the Adopted and

Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. I shall deal with each in turn below.

Principle -

Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to the location of new development, which gives priority to previously developed land ahead of Greenfield land. In his report the Inspector has recommended that the policy be amended to give priority to the re-use/conversion of existing buildings where they are sound and worthy of reuse and/or of architectural or historic interest ahead of other previously developed land.

The site is currently occupied by a three-storey building and a single storey outbuilding, which have been vacant for a number of years as they are not compliant with legislation passed under the Disability

Discrimination Act. The applicant submitted a supporting statement that outlines their reasoning for not re-using the existing buildings. They state that their ability to be reused for office purposes or converted to residential accommodation is limited as considerable economic outlay would be required to make the buildings

DDA compliant and suitable for use particularly given that the buildings have been vandalised in the past and the out building is in a poor state of repair. Consequently the applicant is of the opinion that re-use or conversion of the existing buildings would not therefore be an effective solution to bring the site back into use.

I am satisfied with this justification for not reusing the existing buildings and therefore I am of the opinion that

- 28 -

the proposed development is in accordance with the sequential approach to the location of new development outlined in Policy ST11 and the Inspectors Report.

I do not have any objections to the demolition of the existing buildings as the site is not located within a conservation area and the buildings themselves do not have any architectural merit nor do they have any

“special” history that makes them worthy of listing or re-use.

The application site is located in a predominantly residential area and I am therefore of the opinion that the use of the land for residential purposes would be compatible with surrounding land uses.



The surrounding area comprises predominantly semi-detached and terraced dwellings, and I am therefore of the opinion that, as this application proposes apartments, it would contribute to the provision of a mix of dwelling types in the area, in accordance with policies H1. I therefore consider the principle of the proposed development to be acceptable.

Amenity of neighbours and future residents

Adopted Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard should be had in the determination of planning applications. Of most relevance to this application are the location of the proposed development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size and density of the proposed development and the impact on neighbouring residents.

Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.

There would be habitable room window-to-window separation distances of 23.5m to the properties at the rear of Victoria Road and 24m to those opposite on Park Road. The proposed apartments would not therefore result those on Victoria Road or Park Road experiencing a loss of privacy or a reduction in the residential amenity they can reasonable expect to enjoy.

The relationship between the proposed apartment block and the properties located within Tandis Court is such that there would not be any facing habitable room windows. At its closest the building would be located 13.5m from the habitable room windows contained within Tandis Court, the same as the existing building. There are 2 mature trees on the common boundary of the site, which provide screening. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposed apartment block would not form an overbearing structure and therefore its introduction would not have an adverse impact upon the amount of light the residents of Tandis Court currently receive. Consequently the residential amenity the occupants of Tandis Court currently enjoy would not be adversely affected by the proposal.

The residential amenity the occupants of 50 Park Road would not be affected by the proposal either as those residents at 50 Park Road do not have any habitable room windows in their gable end and the building would not project beyond a 45-degree line drawn from any habitable room window in the rear elevation of the property.

- 29 -

In the light of the above separation distances, I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or future residents of the neighbouring dwellings and the proposed apartments. I am therefore of the opinion that the application accords with Policy DES7.

Design



The majority of the adjacent buildings are two storeys in height, I do not however have any objections to the scale and massing of the proposed building, as it would only be 1m higher than the existing building and despite having a larger footprint and a more prominent front elevation I am of the opinion that the proposed building would not have an adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the area. It respects the existing building line and it is well designed so it incorporates a number of the local architectural features. I have attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development and I am satisfied that this will ensure that they will be of a suitably high quality and in keeping with the surrounding area. This should ensure that the proposed building makes a positive contribution to the character of the area.

On the above basis, I am of the opinion that the application accords with

Adopted Policy DEV2 and Draft Policy DES1.

Car Parking and access


Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.

A total of nine car parking spaces would be provided within the site. In addition, there would be a cycle storage area within the site. The application site is also well located in terms of public transport. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable and accords with the Council’s maximum car parking standards.

Part of the proposal involves the widening of the exiting vehicular access, which will be gated 9.5m from the site boundary and the introduction of a separate pedestrian access. The City Council’s highway engineer is of the opinion that the proposed car parking layout and the new access is acceptable and therefore I do not have any concerns with the proposal on highway safety grounds.

- 30 -

Trees


Policy EN10 of the Revised Replacement Plan states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of trees will not be permitted.

The adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for trees states that

“In the case of residential buildings, a development in which a principle window (main window to a lounge, dining room or main bedroom) is overshadowed by a tree, or where any part of a tree is sited within 3.6m of a window will be resisted

”.

There are two large trees within the grounds of 48 Park Road, a sycamore and a horse chestnut. City of Salford

Tree Preservation Order Number 13 protects the sycamore. The horse chestnut is not protected. The City’s arboricultural consultant has inspected the horse chestnut, which has been topped in the past, and therefore in his opinion it is not worthy of protection, particularly given the limited contribution the tree makes to the visual amenity of the area. The applicant has however stated that they intend to retain the tree and consequently I feel it is appropriate to use protection measures to ensure that its health is not unnecessarily adversely affected by the proposed development.

In the arboricultural consultants opinion the erection of protective fencing would ensure that the construction of the proposed apartments would not have a detrimental impact upon the trees. The separation distances between the canopies of the trees and habitable room windows in the proposed apartments complies with the guidance in the SPG and therefore the development would not result in an unacceptable impact upon the trees due to future people pressure either. Overall, I am therefore satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding trees.


As result of my concerns relating to its design and appearance in the street scene the scheme submitted under 05/50659/FUL has been amended to include architectural features typical of other buildings in the area. A separate pedestrian access has also been introduced in order to minimise the potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development to be acceptable and that the proposed scheme would contribute to the provision of a mix of dwelling types in the area. I am satisfied that the amenity of existing or future residents of neighbouring properties and the proposed apartments would not be unacceptably detrimentally affected as a result of this scheme and that the design of the buildings is acceptable. Consequently, I am satisfied that the application accords with the relevant policies of the

Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION:


- 31 -

1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within

12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

4. Before the first occupation of the apartments hereby permitted, the new vehicular access and pedestrian access to the development, as shown on the approved plans, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the

Local Planning Authority.

5. No development shall be started until substantial fences, located 5m from the base of the trees, have been erected around the sycamore and horse chestnut trees located within the site. Such fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development and shall remain until all development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.

6. Notwithstanding the details submitted, prior to the commencement of development an arboricultural method statement that details the special procedures and materials that will be used to remove the tarmacadum within the sphere of influence of the sycamore and horsechestnut tree and to construct the new driveway, car parking and landscaped areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority. Once approved the tarmacadum shall be removed in accordance with the approved scheme and the new driveway, car parking and landscaped areas shall be constructed in accordance with the approved scheme.

7. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of bin stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved bin stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before the development is brought into use.

8. Prior to the commencement of development a revised car parking layout providing 9 spaces that incorporates 1 disabled car parking space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local

Planning Authority. The car park shall be laid out and made avaliable for use prior to the first occupation of the apartments. Such provision shall be retained and kept avaliable for use thereafter.

(Reasons)




- 32 -

4. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety

5. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees



8. To accord with Policy A10 of the revised deposit draft replacement plan in the interests of highway saftey and residentail amenity.


1. The permission shall relate to the amended plan received on the 3rd of October 2005 which shows a revised access arrangement.

2. The responsibility to properly address contaminated land issues, including safe development, irrespective of any action taken by this authority, lies with the owner/developer of the site. The applicant/developer is requested to contact the Council's Environmental Protection Unit as soon as is practicable should contamination be encountered during development of the site. Historical map searches have identified a former potentially contaminative use (i.e. may be a former industrial use, an infilled feature such as a pond etc.) that may effect the development of the site. You need to ensure that your builder and the building control officer dealing with the developer are aware of this so that appropriate precautions can be taken to protect the developer, the public, the environment and the future occupants from contamination issues.

For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Advisory, the applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the Environment

Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551).

APPLICATION No:

APPLICANT:

LOCATION:

PROPOSAL:

05/51321/FUL

Del Greco Homes Ltd

Oakwood 337 Manchester Road Clifton M27 6PT

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two three-storey building comprising 18 apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access

WARD:

OBSERVATIONS:

Pendlebury


- 33 -

Since writing my report I have received three additional letters of objection. Whilst the letters do not raise any new issues, they do raise concerns over the amended location of block B and possible implications upon the

TPO’d trees.

Urban Vision’s arboricultural consultant has assessed the trees and the submitted tree assessment. He has also met with the applicant’s own aborist on site and discussed the amendment to the siting of block B. He is of the opinion that the amendment to the siting of block B would be sufficient to safeguard the protected (confirmed and provisional) trees on site.


This application relates to a large detached property which is bounded by a belt of mature TPO’d trees on its northern and western boundaries. To the front of the site is a stone wall approximately 1.5m in height. The site is within an established residential area comprising mainly of two storey semi detached properties, although there are some three storey apartments opposite and bungalows on Oakwood Avenue to the west.

The proposal seeks to demolish the existing property and erect two blocks of apartments. Each block would contain 9 two bed apartments. Both blocks would be three storey with the front proportion of each block utilising the roof space. Access would be taken from the existing vehicular access. Car parking for 18 cars would be provided between each of the blocks.

Amenity space would be provided to the rear of block B, the front of block A and along the eastern common boundary.

SITE HISTORY

A similar scheme was refused under delegated authority earlier this year

(05/50777/FUL). The following reasons for refusal were attached:

1. The design of Block A would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area by reason of its height, scale and proportions of the proposed roof. The proposed development is contrary to Policy DEV2 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES1 of the Revised Deposit Draft

Replacement Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed development would result in the removal of a mature tree which has the protection of a provisional Tree Preservation Order. The loss of this tree would be to the significant detriment of the character and appearance of the local area, contrary to both the City Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on

Trees and policy EN10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan

CONSULTATIONS

The Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to conditions regarding site investigations and noise assessments

Environment Agency – no objection in principle subject to drainage condition

United Utilities – no objection in principle

Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Advises that a cul-de-sac would enable greater secured by design principles.

PUBLICITY

- 34 -

The site has been advertised by way of press and site notice.


2 – 16 Oakwood

16 – 24 (even), 21 – 31 (odd) Solway Close

Clifton Post Office

1 – 48 (con) Kirkstile Place

321 – 335 and 343 – 347 Manchester Road

Flat 1 – 18 (con) Clifton Court

REPRESENTATIONS

I have received 13 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues have been raised:

Impact of additional vehicles

Bats

Removal of mature trees

Overlooking

Loss of privacy

Amount of development already in area

Amount of flats in area

Shadows effect upon Solway

Access to property

Character of the area

Work has already commenced



Other policies: None



Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2

– Good Design, DEV4 – Design and Crime, T13 – Car

Parking EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands,



Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development, DES1 – Respecting Context, DES11 –

Design and Crime, A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New

Development, EN10 Protected Trees

PLANNING APPRAISAL

- 35 -

The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of residential development in this location is acceptable; whether the development would have any impact upon the TPO’d trees; whether the proposal satisfies the previous reasons for refusal of a similar scheme and whether the proposal complies with the provisions of the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. These issues will be discussed in turn below.

The Principle of Residential Development



The Inspector has recommended a number of amendments to this policy including the deletion of some of the criteria but that density of 30 dwellings per hectare should be sought.

National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be considered. PPG3 also states that, when considering conversions, a more flexible approach is required with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking.

The site has previously been developed and considered as a brownfield site, as such, I consider the principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential accommodation to be acceptable and accords with the thrust of the policies highlighted above. This has to be balanced against the loss of a potential tourism asset and the existing building.

Design, Layout and Siting

Adopted Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision.


Adopted Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors including the provision of security features.

Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials. The Inspector has recommended no changes to this policy.

Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.

- 36 -

Block A

The applicant’s agent has provided a street scene elevation of the proposal within the context of the neighbouring semi detached property. Block A has been amended to reduce the height of the ridge from 9.3m adjacent to the common boundary. It would also include a hipped roof similar to that of the neighbouring semi detached dwelling. The height of the scheme would then increase to a height of 10.7 some 10m from the main wall of the neighbouring semi. This section also includes a hipped roof.

The foot print of this element of the scheme would measure 18.4m X 13.6m. The element closet to the common boundary would be on a similar building line to that of the rear of the neighbouring property. The part of block

A which would project beyond that of the rear elevation would measure 5m and would be 5m from the common boundary.

There are no habitable windows within this neighbouring semi detached gable.

Access to the block would be provided from both the Manchester Road Elevation and the rear car park elevation.

Block B

Block B would be three storey with the third storey partially in the roof space and would include hipped roofs.

It would also include two storey bays to reflect the design and appearance of the surrounding residential properties. Three dormers would be provided within the elevation facing the car. The rear elevation would be of a three storey appearance. The footprint of this block would measure 17 X 14m. The eaves height at the front of the block would be 6.7m stepping to 8.6m. The highest part of ridge would be 12.2m.

This block would provide 6 two bed apartments and 2 one bed apartments

The block would be 6m from the common boundary and 12.8m to the closest corner of the properties on

Solway Avenue. Block B would be sited parallel to the space between 24 and 31 Solway. These neighbouring properties on Solway are sited so that the main rear aspects would not face the gable of the proposed block B.

Given that the aspects do not face the proposal I consider that this part of the proposal acceptable.

The policy architectural liaison officer has raised some concerns with regard to the gated access at the front of site. He has recommended that the inclusion of a cul-de-sac would enable the scheme to accord with the principles of secured by design. However, whilst the proposal would not achieve secured by design status the constraints of the site including position of TPO’d trees are such that a cul-de-sac could not be incorporated into the scheme and provide the neighbouring properties and future occupiers with the same level of amenity. The site would include gated vehicular and pedestrian access points which would accord with the design and crime policies of the adopted and revised plan and with guidance provided within the Council’s adopted SPG for

Design and Crime.

Trees


Policy EN10 of the Revised Replacement Plan states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of trees will not be permitted. The Inspector has recommended no changes to this policy.

The Inspector has recommended no changes to this policy.

Urban Vision’s arboricultural consultant has assessed the trees and the submitted tree assessment. The previous reason for refusal stated:

- 37 -

“The proposed development would result in the removal of a mature tree which has the protection of a provisional Tree Preservation Order. The loss of this tree would be to the significant detriment of the character and appearance of the local area, contrary to both the City Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on

Trees and policy EN10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan”

The siting of Block B has been amended so that it would be 12.5 from the Sycamore which has been afforded the protection of a provisional TPO. Moreover, Urban

Vision’s arboricultural consultant is of the opinion that this tree is in need of pruning. He has recommended that the crown be reduced by 1m. The revised siting coupled with the suggested pruning work would ensure that this element of the proposal would accord with the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for trees.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding trees.

Car Parking



The applicant has indicated that a total of 18 car parking spaces would be provided, I have no highway objection to the application. Given that the site is located on a major route in and out of City and one that is well served by public transport, I consider the level of car parking to be appropriate and in accordance with the

Council’s maximum car parking standards. Two spaces would be marked for disabled persons. I have attached a condition requiring details of cycle stores to be provided.

Turning to the proposed access. The City Council’s highway engineer is of the opinion that the proposed access is sufficient for the proposed development providing adequate protection measures are provided to ensure visibility.

Other issues

I have instructed the applicant’s agent to undertake a bat survey following comments from the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit. I will report the findings of this assessment to the Panel.


Since the refusal of the last scheme the design of the proposal has been amended to address reason for refusal number one. The siting of block B has also been amended so that the large sycamore on the edge of the mature woodland can be retained. I consider that these amendments address the reason why the previous scheme was refused.

Moreover, the improvements to the design of block A have also been replicated on block B to the rear of the site.

- 38 -

CONCLUSION

I consider that the amendments made to the design of Block A and the siting of Block B are sufficient to offset the reasons for refusing the previous scheme. As such I consider that this revised scheme should be approved. I do not consider that there are any material considerations that outweigh this view.

RECOMMENDATION:


1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit

2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the external elevations of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within

12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

4. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing

5. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores

6. No development shall commence until a scheme of recycling facilities for the apartments has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

7. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme for the apartments has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

8. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.

The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.

Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the

Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works

- 39 -

undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.

9. Prior to commencement of the development; the developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels from the surrounding roads that the proposed residential elements will be subjected to

(day time and night time). The developer shall detail what steps have to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above. The assessment shall have due regard to the Department of the Environment

Guidance PPG 24 - Planning and Noise, achieving BS8233: 1999 in all habitable rooms. This assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development. Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be implemented and thereafter retained.

10. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 4th October 2005 which shows the revised siting of Block B and amendments to the design of both blocks

11. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.

12. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the dwellings

(Reasons)


2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity


4. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas

5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours



8. Standard Reason R028A Public safety


10. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt


12. To reduce the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal in accordance with policy DEV 11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.


- 40 -


2. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition and issues relating to noise during construction and demolition, the applicant/developer is advised to contact the

Environmental Protection Team in the Directorate of Environmental Services (Tel: (0161) 737 0551).

3. The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities with regarding to drainage and connection to the sewer network

- 41 -

AMENDMENTS/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF ... DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO THE PLANNING TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib