PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/51364/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Weiss
LOCATION:
50 Tully Street Salford M7 4DP
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side and rear extension and single storey rear
extension
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
50 Tully Street is a semi-detached corner property located at the junction of Tully Street and Wellbeck
Grove. The characteristic of the area is residential with a mixture of semi-detached properties located on the
even side of Tully Street and terraced properties on Wellbeck Grove. The terrace properties on Wellbeck
Grove maintain a clearly defined build line. Opposite 50 Tully Street is a large site currently being
re-developed for residential units.
The proposal involves the erection of a two storey side extension and two storey rear extension. The side
extension is proposed to project out 4m from the side elevation. The proposal would involve altering the
roof of the existing property from a hip end to a gable elevation to create a bedroom in the roof space. The
side extension would project approximately 1m forward of the existing front elevation at both the ground
and first floor level. The two storey rear extension would project out 3.3m from the rear elevation. The
proposal also incorporates the erection of a single storey rear extension on the common boundary with the
adjoining property. The single storey rear element of the proposal projects out 2.74m along the common
boundary with the adjoining semi before returning on a 45 degree angle.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 to 6 Wellbeck Grove
5 Wellbeck Grove
52 Tully Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
Councillor Wilson has requested the application be determined by the Panel due to special family
circumstances.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8-House Extensions
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7- Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Both the proposed single storey rear extension and the first floor element of the two storey rear extension
nearest the common boundary with 52 Tully Street Complies with the SPG on House Extensions and are
not discussed further in this panel report. The proposed bedroom within the proposed gabled roof element
of the two storey side extension does not generate any issues in terms of over looking or loss of privacy on
the neighbouring residents.
An amended set of plans has been received from the applicant that show all three bay window features
removed from the gable elevation of the proposed side extension. The plans now show at first floor level: a
bedroom with a window to the front elevation, a bedroom with a window to the rear elevation together with
a shower and a utility room with obscurely glazed windows to the side elevation. The ground floor would
comprise: dining room to the front elevation, a morning room with a window to the rear elevation and a
lobby with a door to the side elevation.
The amended proposals do not generate any issues in terms of over looking or loss of privacy on the
neighbouring residents at 2 and 4 Wellbeck Grove. This element of proposal is not discussed further in this
report.
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the proposed two storey side
extension on the street scene and whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of both the
Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs.
Policy DEV8 of the Adopted UDP and Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan state
that development will not be permitted where it would have an adverse impact upon the occupiers or users
of other developments in the vicinity or an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the
street scene.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) was adopted in December 2002 after public
consultation. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards maintained when
determining householder applications
SPG policy HH14 requires that a minimum 2m separation distance is maintained between the proposed
gable wall of a side extension and the boundary with the pavement. This is to preserve the building line of
the street scene and prevent an extension dominating the street scene. The proposed two storey side
extension would project out from the side of existing gable elevation by 4m. This would result in a two
storey gable elevation being only 1.5m from the boundary with Wellbeck Grove. There is a well-detailed
building line on Wellbeck Grove and the property is located on a prominent corner site. As such the
proposed two storey side extension combined with a gable end roof would have a significant detrimental
impact on the street scene that would be out of character with the other properties in Wellbeck Grove and is
contrary to HH14. This is considered contrary to Adopted UDP Policy DEV8 and Revised UDP Policy
DES7.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
This proposal could set a precedent for further similar extensions within the surrounding area as there are
many properties on corner plots which have scope for similar proposals. Cumulatively this leads to erosion
of the character of the area.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the due to its size and siting the proposal constitutes a strident and obtrusive feature
in the street scene. I am of the opinion that the proposal does not comply with the relevant policies of both
the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs and the House Extension Supplementary
Planning Guidance and therefore recommend it for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
(Reasons)
1. The proposed side extension would be within 2m of the side boundary, and would project out 4m from
the side of the dwelling resulting in an obtrusive feature in the street scene to the detriment of the
character of the area and contrary to HH14 of the City of Salford Supplementary Planning GuidanceHouse Extensions and DEV8 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Policy DES8 Alterations and Extensions.
APPLICATION No:
05/51272/OUT
APPLICANT:
Harrow Estates Plc
LOCATION:
Former Clariant Works Hayes Road Cadishead M44 5BX
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of 350 dwellings
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This 7.28 hectare site, which was until recently the site for Clariant Works, is bounded by Cadishead Park to
the north, Hayes Road to the west, the Manchester Ship Canal Company to the south and the disused
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
railway embankment to the east. The site has been used for chemical manufacturing and processing.
Existing vehicular access to the site is from Hayes Road.
Cadishead Park consists mainly of open recreation fields with some children’s play facilities and has a line
of mature trees close to the boundary with the Clariant site. Hayes Road consists of both residential
properties and commercial uses. The Ship Canal is to the south and the recently opened Cadishead Way
by-pass phase II runs between the Clariant site and the ship canal. The site and the area are generally flat
however the former railway is elevated above the Clariant site.
The applicant seeks outline approval for 350 dwellings and seeks approval of siting and means of access
under this application. All other matters are proposed to be reserved. The applicant states that the proposed
350 dwellings include 22 one bed flats, 146 two bed flats, 100 three bed houses and 82 four bed houses. An
area of public open space is to be included within the site which would provide pedestrian links through to
the adjoining Cadishead park. The applicant suggests a mixture of two and three storey houses and flats
across the site with one block being 4 ½ storey adjacent to the railway embankment. The applicant
proposes seven houses and an apartment block fronting Hayes Road opposite existing dwellings. Vehicular
access for the seven houses fronting Hayes Road would be from Hayes Road with those houses having off
street parking. The other 343 units would be accessed via Cadishead Way, with each unit having an off
street parking space.
The application has been submitted with a planning and design statement, transport assessment, noise
assessment and tree survey. The planning statement explains the rationale behind the density of
development and the layout of the scheme. The transport assessment considers traffic capacity on the local
highway network, public transport networks and concludes the scheme does not have adverse transport
implications. The noise assessment explains mitigation is required along the boundary with Cadishead Way
and recommends a 3.5m high screen and acoustic glazing above ground floor level. The submitted tree
report suggests the need for removal of some trees within Cadishead Park and that digging out of existing
tarmac under the crown spread of trees should be done by hand.
The applicant has explained site remediation will be done under a bio-remediation process which has a
timescale of about three years. The applicant has requested five additional years for the submission of
reserved matters given the length of time site remediation will take and the potential for delay.
SITE HISTORY
In October 2003, outline planning permission was granted (with all matters reserved) for residential
development consisting of 288 residential units (03/46638/OUT). This application had a standard time limit
of three years for submission of reserved matters.
In 2004, outline planning permission was granted for residential development (04/48340/OUT).
In April 2005, planning permission was granted for site remediation to facilitate residential development
(04/49520/FUL).
In June 2005, outline planning permission was refused for the siting and means of access for 359 residential
dwellings (05/50433/OUT). The reasons for refusals were:
The proposed dwellings at Plots 1 to 25 would by virtue of their size and siting, be seriously
detrimental to the amenity of residents of residential properties at 26 to 42 even and 39 Hayes
Road by way of loss of privacy, contrary to policies DEV1 of the Adopted City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan
2003-2016.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
The layout of the site would not provide for an acceptable definition of defensible space and
natural surveillance for parking areas and apartments as a result would lead to conditions
prejudicial to designing out crime and the fear of crime contrary to policy DEV 4 of the Adopted
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and DES11 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
Plan 2003-2016.
The proposed design and layout of the development is poor. In particular the height and siting of
units 1 to 25 forward of the prevailing building line on Hayes Road; isolated parking courts; the
inward orientation of houses at plots 26 to 42 and apartments at plots 112 to 123 ignoring the
context with the adjoining Cadishead Park and also the height and scale of units 217 to 246. As
such the development is contrary to policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the Adopted City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan
2003-2016.
Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to fully assess the impact of
development upon the treescape within the neighbouring Cadishead Park contrary to policy EN7
of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES1 of the Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003-2016.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections, conditions recommended
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received. Previously required a site investigation
condition to be attached.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections but recommend that the applicant
consult with the Architectural Liaison Unit prior to the reserved matters stage
Manchester Ship Canal Company – No comments
United Utilities – No objections
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – No objections recommendations made
PNFS – Recommend condition if a right of way is to be blocked.
Ramblers Association – No objection
Open Space Society – No comments received
GM Pedestrian Association - No comments received
GM Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections wish to be consulted prior to reserved matter stage
The three Councillors of Cadishead were also consulted over the application.
The Irlam and Cadishead Community Committee have been consulted but have not commented. During
previous applications the Members of the Community Committee agreed in principle to the provision of
housing on Hayes Road, however, there were concerns with regard to traffic management in the area with
specific reference to vehicles turning into Hayes Road.
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on the 25th May 2004.
A press notice was also published.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 19 odd Green Lane
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
2 – 10 even and 8A & 10A Green Lane
1 – 3 Harriet Street
1 – 39 odd Hayes Road
4 – 12 even Hayes Road
26a, 26 – 42 even Hayes Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
Too many houses are proposed
One car space per household is not enough
Object to the loss of trees within Cadishead
Object to the loss of daffodil bulbs within Cadishead Park as the daffodils provide a lovely
welcome in spring after a dreary winter
Object to the use of Harriet Street as a public footpath as this is privately owned
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EC3 re-use of sites and premises
H1 Housing Needs, H6 and H11 Open space Provision, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, DEV7
Development of Contaminated Land
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/8 Sites for New Housing/Land at Hayes Road, Cadishead
Other policies: H1 Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision, A2 Cyclists,
Pedestrian and the Disabled, EN13 Contaminated Land
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Planning policies have not changed since the previous outline approval. I consider the main planning issues
are the density of development, the layout of development, vehicular and pedestrian access, impact upon
trees and impact of noise upon future occupiers. Also under consideration is the impact of extending the
time limit for submission of reserved matters.
Density and Layout
The principle of residential development has been established through previous outline approvals. Policy
H9/8 of the replacement plan allocates the site for housing development and states that Cadishead Way will
provide very good road access and that some smaller units should be provided as well as a minimum density
of 35 dwellings per hectare. Policy H1 of the deposit draft UDP requires that new housing should contribute
to a mix of dwelling types, not less than 30 units per hectare or not less than 50 units per hectare on sites
adjoining neighbourhood centres and good quality public transport corridors.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
I have received objection to the proposed density of development. Each house has its own private amenity
space, the apartments have some on site incidental amenity and an area of open space is proposed within the
site. I am satisfied with the proposed separation distances within the site and to existing residential
properties. Given the mix of units and the proposed density of 48 dwellings per hectare, as this site is close
to Liverpool Road and Cadishead Neighbourhood Centre, I consider the proposal to be in accordance with
policies H9/8 and H1.
The applicant has designed the development to form vistas through the site to Cadishead Park. Pedestrian
links are proposed to Cadishead Park from the site which will enhance activity within the park. I am
satisfied that the proposal incorporates an innovative approach to housing layout.
Traffic
Objection was previously raised if vehicle access could be gained between Hayes Road/Green Lane and
Cadishead Way and the Community Committee expressed concerns over traffic management and vehicles
turning onto Hayes Road. The previous outline scheme allowed for 96 units to be accessed from Green
Lane/Hayes Road. This scheme proposes vehicular access to seven houses from Green Lane/Hayes Road,
with further access onto the site only possible for emergency vehicles. I consider the vehicular access to be
acceptable. The apartments have one space per unit whereas some of the houses have two off streetspaces. I
consider the level of parking proposed to be acceptable with regard to maximum parking standards. I
propose a condition to limit construction and remediation traffic to utilise the route of the Cadishead Way.
Pedestrian and bicycle access to the site will be possible either from Hayes Road, Cadishead Way or
through Cadishead Park. I note the comment from the Peak and Northern Footpath Society requiring a
planning condition if a public right of way is to be obstructed, however, no footpath is proposed to be
closed. I agree with the Ramblers Association that pedestrian permeability will be provided. I have no
objection to the vehicular access or pedestrian routes proposed.
Trees
The submitted tree survey suggests some pollarded trees should be felled within Cadishead Park due to their
health. I agree with the objector that these trees should not be removed. The Councils Arborist has
considered the submitted tree report and advises that as long as the pollared trees within the park are
managed there are no reasons to fell. The report also requires that digging out of existing tarmac under the
crown spread of trees should be done by hand, I propose recommend a condition be added to this effect. I
am satisfied with the siting of the housing in relation to the trees in Cadishead Park but do require further
information in relation to the retaining wall between the site and the park, which can be secured through a
condition.
Noise
The submitted noise report recommends mitigation measures be included in the scheme. A 3.5 metre high
acoustic screen is proposed to limit noise to habitable room windows at ground floor level on units fronting
Cadishead Way. At upper levels acoustic windows are proposed. I consider a 3.5m high screen fence would
be excessively high for a residential area and consider that noise mitigation at ground floor level should also
be through acoustic glazing. I recommend a condition be attached for a scheme to be submitted to
investigate this further. I am satisfied that road noise from Cadishead Way can be mitigated against.
Open Space Provision
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
Policies H6, H11, H8 and SPG7 (Open Space associated with New Housing Developments) seek an area of
public open space and childrens play space based on the number of bedspaces of a development. The
developer has sought a fairly high density of development and has proposed 0.4 hectares of public open
space within the site. The developer seeks to provide the balance required for 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 1292 bedspaces which equates to a
commuted sum value of £266,892 when the 0.4 hectares to be provided on site, is taken into account.
Phasing and Contamination
Operations at this site have revolved around the chemical industry and the site is contaminated. I am
satisfied that the site can be reclaimed for residential development in accordance with DEV7 and EN13.
The applicant suggests that bio-remediation will result in fewer vehicle movements than other forms of
remediation. I propose a condition to ensure that the site is properly cleaned prior to housing being built.
Subject to this condition I have no objections over site contamination. I appreciate that the remediation of
the site may take longer than three years and consider it appropriate to extend the time for the submission of
reserved matters to allow for the cleansing of the site.
Objections not covered above
I have received objection to the use of Harriet Street by future residents of this development. Harriet Street
is not within the site of this planning application and I do not consider access over that street to be material
to this application.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
I have discussed this application with the agent prior to its submission and have ensured the Cadishead and
Irlam Community Committee and local Councillors were consulted on the application.
o Significant improvements to the layout of the development have resulted since the previous refusal
of reserved matters (05/50433/OUT).
o Numbers of houses using Green Lane and Hayes Road for vehicle access dramatically reduced
from 96 in the previous outlines to 7 on the current scheme.
o Each of the reasons for refusal has been addressed through this amended application.
o An objector to the previous application, on the basis of loss of residential amenity, is satisfied with
this layout.
o S106 of £266,892 for open space, children’s play space and environmental improvements
CONCLUSION
I consider the density to be appropriate. I am satisfied that conditions will ensure that only vehicular access
for seven units will be along Hayes Road/Green Lane and that this situation is preferable to the previous
operation with HGV movements. I am also satisfied that the extension of time will allow for the
remediation of the site. I consider the proposed layout of development to be an improvement to the
previously refused scheme and that this layout satisfies the relevant planning policies. I have no highway
objections and recommend approval subject to the conditions listed below.
RECOMMENDATION:
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
Approve Subject to the following conditions and 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.
(Conditions)
1. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of five years
beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than whichever
is the later of the following dates:(a) the expiration of seven years from the date of this permission; or
(b) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of
approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- plans and elevations showing the design of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted, any
existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk positions, walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. The details required by Condition two of this permission shall indicate the stages in which the
development is proposed to take place.
4. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
5. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
6. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
7. 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.
8. 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, disabled parking, bin
stores and recycling facilities. Once approved such a scheme shall be implemented prior to the
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
occupation of any dwelling hereby approved.
9. Prior to the commencement of development and notwithstanding the details already submitted a revised
noise report shall be submitted to for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The noise
mitigation measures proposed in the approved report shall be implemented prior to the first occupation
of the associated residential unit hereby approved and shall be thereafter maintained.
10. Development shall not be begun until drainage details, incorporating sustainable drainage principles
and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro-geological context of the development, have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the scheme shall
subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of
the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
11. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a scheme for the written
approval of the Local Planning Authority which shall include a detailed landscaping and tree works
plan, an aboricultural method statement describing how the trees along the northern site boundary are to
be retained together with proposals for the treatment of the existing retaining wall along the boundary.
Development shall not commence until such a scheme has been approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Once approved the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the
approved scheme and shall be thereafter retained.
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. 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 Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
8. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan and to ensure appropriate cycle and disabled parking provision in
accordance with policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft UDP.
9. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
10. Reason: To encourage the sustainable management of water in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
11. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment Agency.
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. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Environment Directorate
(Tel: (0161) 737 0551
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from GMPTE.
5. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater Manchester
Police Architectural Liaison Unit.
6. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities.
APPLICATION No:
05/50913/FUL
APPLICANT:
Abito
LOCATION:
Land At Clippers Quay Trafford Road Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 290 residential units within a block ranging from 7 to 11
storeys with glazed roof canopy above, and 400 sq.m floorspace for
either retail shops or office accommodation and 52 parking spaces
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land on Clippers Quay on the site of the former Waterside Public House. The site
is bounded by the three storey Copthorne Hotel to the east, four storey office block Optmium House to the
west, former Cinema site to the south and Dock 6 to the north. The existing dockside walkway separates the
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
site from the Dock. On the other side of dock 6, 80 metres to the north of this site, is the residential
development of Merchants Quay, which consists of low-level two and three storey housing.
The site covers an area of 0.3 hectares. The applicant proposes to erect an eleven storey building fronting
Dock 6 which would rake down to seven storeys fronting Clippers Quay. The footprint of the building is
roughly square in shape and would be built to the edge of the site boundary. The building would comprise
282 studio apartments and 8 two-bedroom apartments at first floor level and above. An internal courtyard
area is proposed in the middle of the building with access to the apartments from this courtyard. Fronting
Clippers Quay at ground floor would be a commercial unit 100sq.m. Access to the residential units and
access to the parking area is also from Clippers Quay. Fronting the dockside walkway there would be
300sq.m. of commercial floorspace at ground floor level. The building would be set back from the dockside
by 8.3 metres.
There would be one access point for residents on the south elevation. Waste and recycling facilities would
be at the side of the building on the west elevation. The car parking area is at ground floor level with
concierge, post room and an internal communal courtyard being contained in the centre of the building on a
raised podium, within an atrium. The building would be topped by a fabric roof canopy supported by metal
posts and cables, which would cover the internal courtyard.
The apartments are specifically designed to offer cheaper ‘city centre’ residential accommodation to young
professionals and they would be approximately 25% less expensive than equivalent one bedroom
apartments in the city centre. Each studio apartment would have a balcony and would comprise one room
separated into various parts by a freestanding central unit that houses all the services. The elevations will
comprise full height and width glazing behind the balconies.
The application has been submitted with a planning statement, design statement, shadow analysis and wind
conditions report. The planning statement seeks to justify the development with regard to local and national
planning policies. The shadow analysis shows the existing shadow situation without the proposed building,
shadow impacts with the building and has been updated to show the impact of shadow if the building had
been rotated through 180 degrees. The shadow report has been produced for December, September and
June. The wind report states that wind conditions are expected to be tolerable, or better, for leisure walking
in the worst case wind scenario.
The applicant, Abito, has also submitted information relating to the Abito development at Gravel Lane,
which members will recall was approved by Panel in October 2004 (reference 04/48765/FUL).
SITE HISTORY
In 2003, planning permission was granted for the retention of a temporary
car park and retention of temporary 2.4 metre high fencing and gates.
Permission was granted until December 2004. (03/46752/FUL)
In 2004, planning permission was granted for the retention of a car park
for a temporary period. Permission was granted until 10th November 2005.
(04/49198/FUL).
There is also a current application for the retention of a car park for
a temporary period (05/51415/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
Director of Environmental Services – No objections recommends a contaminated land condition, condition
requiring a noise assessment and a condition limiting the fixed plant and machinery to not exceed
background noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive property. No comments were received with regard to
recycling facilities.
United Utilities – No comments received.
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council – No comments received.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – The site is a key gateway location. The submitted
schematic plan is welcomed. How does this development fit next to the Copthorne Hotel? East and west
elevations at ground floor level appear sterile due to the tall louvres, commercial activity at these levels
would be more desirable. Concern over the fin walls and would like to know the views of the Councils
architectural advisor on the scheme.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle but as a landfill site is identified within 250 metres of the
site recommend a comprehensive landfill gas site investigation be carried out.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No known features of archaeological importance on the site.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Unit – Concern over the external parking area this should have
some form of boundary treatment. Recommend internal connection to recycling facilities. Secure entry
system is needed into the car park. Roller shutters and lighting should meet standards. Recommend the
canopy be raised in height to allow driving rain in so that persons are discouraged from loitering. Party
boundaries should be at least 1.5m in height. Recommends application be refused.
GMPTE – The site is well located in relation to public transport and the site benefits from its close
proximity to Exchange Quay Metrolink Eccles to Manchester Line. The site is also within walking distance
of the nearest bus stops on Trafford Road. Future residents, employees and visitors of the proposed
development would therefore have access to a genuine choice of travel mode which should help to reduce
the amount of car travel otherwise generated by this development. In an area well served by public transport
such as Salford Quays, the aspiration should be to have a reduced amount of car parking in new
developments in order to assist in the promotion of more sustainable travel patterns, and to capitalise on the
advantages of the public transport provision in the area. It is therefore encouraging to note the low level of
car parking provision accompanying this application, this should also help reduce the amount of car travel
that could otherwise be associated with this development. It should therefore be ensured that car parking
provision does not increase with any future amended details or resubmission of this application. GMPTE
also suggest additional measures to be incorporated by the applicant to raise awareness of public transport
services in the area by:
Provision of public transport information to occupants of the new development,
Provision of a free one year travel pass for each residential unit,
Development of a site intranet with public transport information,
Personalised journey planning,
Improving access to, or increasing capacity of, public transport facilities.
Peter Hunter – Confusion over the trees on the quayside. Satisfied with the design following amended
elevations.
PUBLICITY
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
29 to 77 odd Merchants Quay
Optimum House, Clippers Quay
Regatta House, Clippers Quay
Clippers House, Clippers Quay
Copthorne Hotel, Clippers Quay
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received fourteen letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. Objections
have been received from residents of Merchants Quay, Legendary Property Company who own the adjacent
Clippers House Office block and also from the Merchants Quay Residents Association. The following
issues have been raised:o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Parking is insufficient and will result in on street parking especially in Merchants Quay
Appearance. The design is not appropriate.
Height is much taller than surrounding buildings
Anything above 5 storeys would be out of character
Impact of shadowing. Shadow will be cast
Privacy will be lost to houses on Merchants Quay
Whole area is overdeveloped
As the apartments are lower cost the quality of the tenants will be lower
The development will not be affordable
Impact may be better if the building were rotated through 180 degrees.
The number of units should be reduced
I have also received three letters of support, from the Manchester Ship Canal Company and the Copthorne
Hotel.
I have also received a letter of support from Hulley and Kirkwood Consulting Engineers. The letter states
the company wish to relocate to the proposed office space within this development. The company are
currently based in Castelfield.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY.
SD1 – The North West Metropolitan Area Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DP3 - Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H1 Housing
Supply, H6 & H11 Open Space Provision.
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICIES
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
Site Specific: MX1/3 Development in Mixed Use Areas – Salford Quays
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, H1 Supply of Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Associated
with New Housing Development, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES5 Tall Buildings, DES6
Waterside Development, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments,
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime, DEV6 Incremental Development,
EN17A Resource Conservation.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the development is
acceptable, whether the whether the design of the building is of sufficiently high quality in this important
part of the city, impact of shadow and privacy, whether there is sufficient parking, open space provision and
whether the proposals are premature.
Principle of the Development
Policy H1 requires that an adequate supply of housing is brought forward with higher densities being
required at accessible locations such as this site. Policy H1 also requires development to contribute toward
a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability. Draft
policy MX1 states that the wider area that includes this site will be developed as vibrant mixed use areas
with a broad range of uses and activities and that in determining the appropriate mix of uses on individual
sites regard will be had to a number of factors. These factors include the positive impact that the proposed
development could have on the regeneration of the wider area; the use on adjoining sites and the extent to
which the proposed development would support the objective of maintaining a mix and balance of uses
throughout the mixed use area; the contribution that the proposed development would make towards
securing activity in the area throughout the day.
The proposal itself has a mix, albeit weighted toward studio flats, of size of unit. Within the Salford Quays
area there are no other developments either existing or proposed that offer this size of accommodation. The
intended retail/commercial units offer activity at ground floor level. The proposed mix of uses is in
accordance with policies H1 and MX1/3 and I consider the proposed uses, subject to a restriction to retail
uses and office use, would provide positive redevelopment of this underused site.
Design
Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied
with the quality of design and the visual appearance of the development. Draft policy DES1 states that
developments will be required to respond to their physical context, respect the positive character of the
local area and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness via a number of factors that include the
scale and size of the building, its contribution in the street scene and the quality of the proposed materials.
The nature of the building, one-bedroomed apartments that all have a balcony, has to a considerable degree
dictated what the elevations will look like. The architects for the scheme have sought to achieve a high
quality of design. I agree with the URC that the louvres at ground floor will not present a welcoming
pedestrian level and should be screened by soft landscaping which could be positioned adjacent to the
louvres. Plants/shrubs would also help to filter pollution from exhaust fumes and would still allow the car
park to be naturally ventilated. I consider this can be resolved through the imposition of a condition. Peter
Hunter supports the scheme and as such I am satisfied the appearance of the building will be of a
sufficiently high standard of design, subject to the louvres at ground floor level being screened by soft
landscaping.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
Shadowing and Privacy
Policy DEV1 requires that shadowing be taken into account and DES7 states development will not be
permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
development.
The submitted shadow report does show shadowing, as a result of this development, to residential
properties on Merchants Quay between 10:00 and 15:00 in December. The shadow cast from this
development would move west to east gradually through the day. At 10:00 properties 55 to 73 odd
Merchants Quay would be in shadow, at 11:00 properties 39 to 67 odd Merchants Quay would be in
shadow, at 12:00 31 to 49 odd Merchants Quay would be in shadow, at 13:00 9 to 37 odd Merchants Quay
would be in shadow, 14:00 1 to 31 odd would be in shadow, at 15:00 number 1 Merchants Quay would be in
shadow.
The shadowing scenario without the development produces a shadow to 75 and 77 Merchants Quay at
10:00, this shadow is cast by the adjacent four storey Optimum House office block. In September with the
proposed building in the model, the report shows the building would not cast a shadow onto Merchants
Quay with the same result evident in June.
The submitted shadow report has been amended to show the impact of shadow should the building have
been rotated through 180 degrees, as suggested by an objector. The shadowing impact is no different to
houses on Merchants Quay that are adjacent to Dock 6.
Whilst there is undoubtedly shadow impact to houses on Merchants Quay in December there is no impact at
the equinox (March and September). As the negative impact is limited to winter, when occupiers are less
likely to be using outside space, I find the impact of shadow to be on balance acceptable. In terms of privacy
I consider the separation distance of 80 metres across Dock 6 to properties on Merchants Quay to be
acceptable with regards to privacy of occupiers of properties on Merchants Quay.
Parking & Public Transport
I have received objection to the level of parking proposed from residents of Merchants Quay and from the
Merchants Quay residents association. Residents of Merchants Quay fear that occupiers of this proposed
development will park their cars on Merchants Quay, as happens when Manchester United play at home. As
stated above GMPTE consider the parking levels proposed to be acceptable and would not like a higher
level of parking. In terms of highway safety I have no objections to the submitted scheme. Policy A10, in
line with Government guidance, seeks maximum parking standards for all developments. Within the
emerging planning framework there is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.
Policy A10 requires that developers investigate measures to reduce the need for car parking provision and
states on street parking measures could be introduced to restrict displacement of car parking. I am advised
by my highway engineer that Merchants Quay is not appropriate for a residents parking scheme. GMPTE
explain there is a choice of travel options to and from this site I consider the provision of a one year travel
pass per residential unit to be essential to establishing sustainable travel patterns. In line with the suggestion
of GMPTE the developer has agreed to enter into a legal agreement to provide free one year travel passes
for the Metrolink and local buses. Subject to such an agreement being reached I am satisfied with the
proposed level of parking.
Design and Crime Issues
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
The architectural liaison unit has suggested the application should be refused. I do not agree that the main
canopy should be altered to allow the weather to penetrate otherwise useable incidental amenity space. I
agree that there should be defensible space around the external parking area but this could be integrated into
the soft landscaping scheme rather than by enclosing this area with railings. I consider that the provision of
a secure entry system can be included through the use of condition. I consider subject to appropriate
conditions to secure the above the application is in accordance with policies DEV4 and DES11.
Sustainable Construction
Policy EN17a of the deposit draft UDP explains planning permission will not be granted if the development
will have an unacceptable impact on the conservation of non-renewable resources. In response to this policy
the applicant has confirmed the following measures will be included with the building:
i. The concrete wall construction method provides a good thermal mass reducing energy use.
ii. The building is constructed using improved “U” values over and above building control levels.
iii. The lighting of the apartments utilises up lighters enabling the use of low energy luminaries,
reducing energy use.
iv. The residential apartments, offices and central amenity space are naturally ventilated reducing
energy use and emissions.
v. The orientation & thermal modelling of the building specifically utilises solar gain reducing
energy use and the need for mechanical heating and ventilation reducing emissions. This also
creates a healthy living & working environment.
vi. The developer and building owner, Abito, will procure power via a Green Tariff Provider, drawing
on renewable energy sources.
vii. All balcony and terrace lighting will be provided utilising power from Photo Voltaic Cells, a
renewable source of energy.
viii. The apartments sanitary ware will include water flow control devices.
ix. All timber used in the building will be Forrest Stewardship Approved.
I consider the above measures are to be welcomed and will help to reduce the impact of the building on
non-renewable resources.
Prematurity
Draft policy DEV6 states that on sites within or immediately adjacent to an area identified for major
development, planning permission will not be granted for incremental development that would
unacceptably hamper or reduce the development options for that wider area. The policy states that in some
circumstances it may be appropriate for redevelopment to be resisted until a masterplan has been produced
for the wider site. There are currently no plans for a masterplan for the Dock 6 area and this would
potentially involve a lengthy process. As the Councils architectural advisor considers the scheme to be
acceptable I recommend this application be assessed on its merits without the need for a masterplan first.
The proposal maintains reasonable distances from its neighbouring sites and I consider it would not
necessarily hamper or reduce the development options for the wider Dock 6 area.
Open Space Provision
Each apartment has a small amount of incidental amenity space via a balcony and access to the internal
courtyard area. In accordance with policies H6, H11 and H8 of the revised deposit draft UDP and SPG7
open space and children’s play space can be accommodated off site through a financial contribution. This
application proposes 588 bedspaces, which equates to a commuted sum value of £227,911.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
In accordance with the policies H6, H11, H8 and SPG7, the applicant has agreed to make a financial
contribution towards childrens play space, open space or local environmental improvements. A total of
£227,911 would be contributed in this regard. The applicant has agreed to fund, albeit with a small
contribution from future occupiers, a one year travel pass. The applicant has also confirmed the use of some
sustainable building techniques.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the main issues are whether the design of the proposed building is acceptable, the impact of
shadow and whether there is sufficient parking proposed. I am satisfied that the design is acceptable and
that the application would not hamper or reduce the development options for the wider area. I am also
satisfied that the impact of shadow is acceptable and that the level of on site parking is acceptable subject to
the above mentioned legal agreement. I am satisfied that the application complies with policies of the
development plan as a whole.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve subject to the following conditions and 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 and one free one
year travel pass for each flat.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. This permission shall relate only to the use of the commercial premises at ground floor level for retail
uses and office uses; and for no other purpose, including any other purpose within Class A1, A2, A3,
A4, A5 or B1; of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005.
3. Standard Condition M08 Site Investigation - new
4. 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. The scheme to be submitted,
shall include details of trees to be planted along the dockside walkway, details of the tree pits which
should not protrude above ground level, and shall include details of a soft landscape screening to the
louvres at ground floor level along the west and east elevations. Such scheme shall also include full
details of shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment. Once approved such
scheme shall be carried out within twelve 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.
5. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit for written approval an
assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. The assessment should follow PPG24
guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road and tram network including Trafford
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
Road, and any other local noise sources which are deemed significant on the site. The assessment shall
identify all noise attenuation measures which may be determined appropriate to reduce the impact of
noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the requirements of BS8233 for internal noise
levels. Consideration shall also be given to achieving adequate rapid ventilation and Summer cooling
whilst achieving the requirements of BS28233:1999. If deemed necessary, alternative ventilation
measures shall be identified and incorporated into the noise assessment report. Once agreed, all
identified noise control measures shall be implemented prior to occupation and shall be thereafter
retained.
6. Noise from fixed plant and machinery on the site (LAeq,t) shall not exceed the background level
(LA90,t) at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive properties at any time.
7. 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. The planning obligation will also provide that each residential unit is supplied with a one year
travel pass for buses and Metrolink in accordance with policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Plan 2003.
8. No A3, A4 or A5 retail unit shall be brought into use unless and until a detailed scheme for the
extraction system which treats fumes and odours before their emission to the atmosphere so as to render
them innocuous has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
scheme shall detail how the extraction unit will be attenuated and mounted to minimise the
transmission of airbourne and structure bourne noise and vibration. The works forming the approved
scheme shall be completed entirely in accordance with the approved scheme and thereafter the works
forming the approved scheme shall at all times remain in place.
9. The car parking parking, disabled parking spaces and cycle parking spaces shown on the submitted
plan(s) shall be made available at all times in connection with the use of the premises, to the satisfaction
of the Local Planning Authority.
10. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit, for the approval of the Local
Planning Authority, a scheme to detail measures to ensure entrances are operated on a secure entry
system. Once approved the scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the residential units
hereby approved in accordance with the approved scheme and the scheme shall be thereafter
maintained.
11. Prior to the first occupation of development the developer shall submit a scheme for the written
approval of the Local Planning Authority detailing the proposed artwork within atrium and details of
the lightbox to the south elevation. Once approved the scheme shall be carried out within 12 months of
the occupation of the development and thereafter shall be maintained.
12. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roofs
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
13. The site shall be treated in accordance with a lighting scheme which shall be submitted to and approved
by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. The scheme to be submitted, shall
include details of lighting columns or bollards or lighting fixed to the building and details of the
luminance levels of such lighting. Once approved such scheme shall be carried out prior to the first
occupation of the development; and thereafter shall be maintained.
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: The site is in an area where industrial uses would not normally be permitted, regard has been
given to the particular nature of the proposed use in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan and MX1/3 Depsoit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. 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 and
A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. To ensure that the development is accessible for people with disabilities in accordance with policy DEV
5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policy A10 of the Salford City Council Draft
Deposit Unitary Development Plan.
10. Reason: To safeguard the security of the area in accordance with policy DEV4 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan and DES11 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan.
11. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
12. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
13. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment Agency.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
2. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Environment Directorate
(Tel: (0161) 737 0551
3. 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.
4. Construction works should not take place outside the following hours: Monday to Friday inclusive
08:00 to 18:00, Saturdays 08:00 to 13:00. Construction works should not be undertaken on Sundays or
Bank/Public Holidays. Access and egress for delivery vehicles should be restricted to the working
hours indicated above.
5. This approval shall relate to the application as supplemented by submitted letters from Drivers Jonas,
on behalf of the applicant, dated 28 September 2005, 7th October 2005 and 19th October 2005.
APPLICATION No:
05/50993/FUL
APPLICANT:
George Wimpey Manchester Ltd
LOCATION:
Land At Mere Drive/Rake Lane Clifton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 59 dwellings together with associated landscaping, car
parking and alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of three former apartment blocks. It
lies to the south east of Rake Lane and to the north west is the Waterside
Resource Unit. To the east the site borders residential development and
the playing fields to St Mark’s Primary School. To the south east the site
overlooks a former reservoir known as the Dam to which there is a pedestrian
desire line running through the site from Rake Lane. This is not a statutory
footpath. To the north beyond Rake Lane is two storey residential
development. The buildings on the site were demolished some time ago and
the site is now cleared. The site remains in the ownership of the Council.
The site is flat and is approximately 1.2m lower than Rake Lane. The site
contains a total of 12 trees and these are found mostly in two groups: along
the boundary with the Resource Unit and around the entrance to the site.
It is proposed to erect a total of 59 dwellings on the site, comprising
a mix of 10 houses and 49 apartments. There would also be a mix of 2 and
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
3 bedroomed properties and a mix of 2.5 and 3 storey heights. Buildings
would front Rake Lane, the central route through the site and would also
look onto the Dam.
The layout of the site has been amended to follow design principles
advocated by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
(CABE) and a ‘home zone’ layout has been achieved. One of the main features
of this kind of layout is that it breaks down the rigid separation of vehicle
and pedestrian spaces, reduces the amount of space and priority given to
vehicles and enhances the pedestrian environment. The layouts produced
by ‘home zones’ also promote better street scenes and an all-round general
improvement in design quality that results in a better living environment
for future occupiers. One area in which is does differ though from normal
Council policy is that it does not stick to the Council’s normal separation
distances. The proposed layout does result in some buildings facing each
other at a distance of 20m.
Of the 12 trees on the site, 8 would be retained including the two largest
trees on the site at the entrance. Of the 4 that are being removed only
2 are lost as a result of the development with the others being removed
as they are in poor condition and not worthy of retention. Improved
landscaping is an important feature of a good ‘home zone’ and the landscape
proposals show that a total of 52 new trees would be planted, eight of which
would be on the Queensway road frontage and 10 within the public areas of
the ‘home zone’.
SITE HISTORY
There is no site history relevant to this application
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services –
United Utilities – no objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – no objections
Environment Agency –
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objections subject to conditions re contamination
and surface water regulation
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
St Marks School Queensway
Waterside Resource Unit and 36 to 40 Billy Lane
87 to 125 Rake Lane
2 and 4 Malcolm Drive
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
60 to 76 Cumberland Avenue
1 to 10 Wirral Close
1 to 8 Cleveland Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of representation / objection including a 30 signature petition in response to the
planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Too many flats already
Proposed Buildings are too tall
People use the site to access the Dam
Overdevelopment
Loss of privacy
Car parking insufficient
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Other policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: Sites for New Housing
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
H8 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy H9/17 – recommends that the site allocation be deleted given that there is already a sizeable
excess of housing provision in the City. If development proposals come forward the site should be
considered as a windfall.
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.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
Draft Policy A10 - recommended only relatively minor amendments
ST11 – recommended a number of minor changes but the thrust of the policy remains the same .
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 Of Development
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 previously developed land and I am of the opinion that the proposed development is in
accordance with the sequential approach to the location of new development outlined in Policy ST11 and
the Inspectors Report.
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.
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.
The surrounding area comprises predominantly semi-detached and terraced dwellings, and I am therefore
of the opinion that, as this application proposes a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroomed houses and 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.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
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.
As described above the separation distances for future occupiers of the development would be less than
normally required under the Councils normal separation distances. It is considered that achieving
improvements to the layout, that are consistent with the principles of good design advocated by CABE,
outweighs adherence to the Council’s normal separation distances in this case. Issues of privacy and
overlooking have been overcome through the orientation of habitable rooms and in the light of the above I
am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or future
residents. I am therefore of the opinion that the application accords with Policy DES7.
Design
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.
The design of the layout and the buildings themselves has been considerably
improved both in pre-application and post submission amendments. A mix
of 2, 2.5 and 3 storeys is proposed and I am satisfied that the ‘home zone’
layout and the buildings themselves are both well designed and acceptable.
I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive
impact upon the visual amenity of the area. 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.
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
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.
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.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
A total of 59 car parking spaces would be provided within the site together with 3 garage spaces. There
would be 8 parking spaces accessed directly from Rakes Lane to serve the residential properties and
apartments fronting that road. The remaining parking spaces would be located within the site. Car parking
spaces 21 and 22 would not be acceptable as they impede direct pedestrian movement from the site to the
footpath leading to the Dam. 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.
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.
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”.
The detailed situation with regard to trees is described above. None of the trees are protected by Tree
Preservation Order but the applicant has taken considerable care to ensure that as many of the mature trees
that are in a condition that warrants their retention are indeed kept while at the same time not unduly
restricting the proper development of the site. In discussions over the retention of trees at the entrance to the
site I agree with the applicant that it is better to provide a decent building layout and plant new trees than to
try to accommodate existing trees within a poor layout. The separation distances between the canopies of
the trees and habitable room windows in the proposed dwellings complies with the guidance in the SPG.
Overall, I am therefore satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding
trees.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
As result of my concerns relating to its design and appearance in the
development the applicant has made considerable improvements to both the
proposed layout of the development and the buildings themselves. The
applicant has agreed to the contribution of £89 958.58.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development to be
acceptable, that the scheme proposes an improved quality of layout and 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 dwellings would not be unacceptably
detrimentally affected as a result of this scheme. 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.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions and 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.
(Conditions)
1. Standard Condition R000 Section 91
2. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use unless and until a kerb radii of 4.5
metre dimension, at the junction of the site entrance with Queensway, has been constructed entirely in
accordance with details and samples to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority,
and thereafter retained.
3. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use unless and until a kerb radii of 4.5
metre dimension, at the junction of the site entrance and Rakes Lane, has been constructed entirely in
accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and retained
thereafter.
4. Notwithstanding the details shown on site layout plan DR-NO revA, the proposed bin and cycle stores,
shall not form part of the approved plans. Prior to the commencement of development, details of
revised siting of the bin and cycle stores shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The bin and cycle stores shall be constructed in the approved location prior to the
dwellings being brought into use, and shall be retained thereafter.
5. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roofs
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. The landscape scheme hereby approved 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.
7. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and
implementation, of a surface water regulation system, has been approved by the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.
8. 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 and
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
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 will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space
purposes.
9. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to
the occupation of any dwelling.
10. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, all windows for all habitable room shall be
fitted with glazing which has an acoustic performance of not less than 31dB Rw_25dB Rtra and all
bedrooms which overlook Rake Lane or Mere Drive which shall be fitted with glazing that can achieve
sound insulation perfomance of not less than 36dB Rw_29 dB Rtra.
11. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, all rooms shall be fitted with trickle vents
with a sound insulation performance of not less than 26dB Dnew and all bedrooms which overlook
Rake Lane or Mere Drive shall be fitted with trickle vents with a sound insulation performance of not
less than 45dB Dnew, and retained thereafter.
12. Prior to the commencement of development, the applicant shall submit a contaminated land
remediation strategy detailing the proposed ground remediation and gas protection proposals for the
written approval of the Local Planning Authority. All agreed mitigation measures shall be
implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings and shall be retained thereafter. In
addition, prior to the first occupation of the site, the applicant shall submit a validation report, to
demonstrate that all agreed ground remediation and gas protection measures have been implemented in
accordance with the approved contaminated land remediation strategy, for the written approval of the
Local Planning Authority.
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason A01 Five year time limit
2. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
3. Reason: To facilitate the intervisibility of users of the highway in the interests of road safety in
accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing buildings in the vicinity in accordance with
policy DEV 3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
7. Reason: To reduce the increase risk of flooding.
8. Reason: 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 Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
9. Reason: To ensure the adequate lighting of the development have regard to the amenity of future
occupants.
10.Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11.Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
12. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The amended plans approved as part of this permission comprise: DR-NO revA Site Layout, 413/04
revE Landscape Proposals, BLK1- PO1 and PO2, The Danebridge house type, the Davenport house
type, A/WD-MTG-02 Madrid plans and elevations as submitted on 20 October 2005.
2. The applicant's attention is brought to the letters of the Environment Agency, United Utilities and
GMPTE.
APPLICATION No:
05/50994/FUL
APPLICANT:
George Wimpey Manchester Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Formerly Willow Bank Home Queensway Clifton Swinton M27
8QE
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 36 dwellings together with associated landscaping, car
parking and alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of a former care home for elderly
people. It lies to the south-west of Queensway and to the north-east is
St Mark’s Primary School. To the west the site overlooks a former reservoir,
known as the Dam. To the south of the site, beyond Queensway, lies informal
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
open space. The home on the site was demolished some time ago and the site
is now cleared. The site remains in the ownership of the City Council.
The site is flat and is elevated above the Dam by approximately 2m. The
site contains a total of 42 trees and these are found mostly in two groups;
along the boundary with the Dam and around the entrance to the site.
It is proposed to erect a total of 36 dwellings on the site. There would
be a total of 34 houses comprising a mix of 2 and 3 bedroomed properties.
They would vary over 2.5 and 3 storeys. There would be 2 apartments within
the site at first floor level over garage blocks. Buildings would front
Queensway and would also look onto the Dam.
The layout of the site has been amended to follow design principles
advocated by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
(CABE) and a ‘home zone’ layout has been achieved. One of the main features
of this kind of layout is that it breaks down the rigid separation of vehicle
and pedestrian spaces, reduces the amount of space and priority given to
vehicles, and enhances the pedestrian environment. The layouts produced
by ‘home zones’ also promote better street scenes and an all-round general
improvement in design quality that results in a better living environment
for future occupiers. One area in which is does differ though from normal
Council policy is that it does not stick to The Council’s normal separation
distances. The proposed layout does result in some buildings facing each
other at a distance of just 11m but issues of privacy and overlooking are
dealt with by having kitchen windows at ground floor and stair and third
bedroom windows at first floor.
Of the 42 trees on the site, 14 of the mature weeping willow and silver
maple that border the Dam would be retained while three of the remaining
specimens would be removed. This would benefit the site as it would
partially open up views of the water. Only one of the better trees would
be lost as it would be located too close to the proposed dwellings (T41
Weeping Willow). The remainder of the trees on the site are smaller than
those that border the Dam and of these 25 sixteen are poor specimens not
worthy of retention. Of the remaining nine, two would be retained and seven
lost as a result of the development (T14 Weeping Willow and T2 Horse
Chestnut). Improved landscaping is an important feature of a good ‘home
zone’ and the landscape proposals show that a total of 52 new trees would
be planted, eight of which would be on the Queensway road frontage and 10
within the public areas of the ‘home zone’.
SITE HISTORY
There is no site history relevant to this application
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health –
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – no objections
United Utilities – no objections in principle
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
Environment Agency – no objections subject to conditions regarding surface water drainage and
improvement to open space around the Dam
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
St Marks school and 9 to 35 Queensway
1 to 11 Silverdale
90 to 120 Rake Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Other policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: Sites for New Housing
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
H8 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy H9/17 – recommends that the site allocation be deleted given that there is already a sizeable
excess of housing provision in the City. If development proposals come forward the site should be
considered as a windfall.
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.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
Draft Policy A10 - recommended only relatively minor amendments
ST11 – recommended a number of minor changes but the thrust of the policy remains the same .
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 of Development
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 previously developed land and I am of the opinion that the proposed development is in
accordance with the sequential approach to the location of new development outlined in Policy ST11 and
the Inspectors Report.
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.
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.
The surrounding area comprises predominantly semi-detached and terraced dwellings, and I am therefore
of the opinion that, as this application proposes a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroomed houses and 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.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
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.
As described above the separation distances for future occupiers of the development would be less than
normally required under the Councils normal separation distances. It is considered that achieving
improvements to the layout, that are consistent with the principles of good design advocated by CABE,
outweighs adherence to the Council’s normal separation distances in this case. Issues of privacy and
overlooking have been overcome through the orientation of habitable rooms and in the light of the above I
am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or future
residents. I am therefore of the opinion that the application accords with Policy DES7.
Design
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.
The design of the layout and the buildings themselves has been considerably
improved both in pre-application and post submission amendments. A mix
of 2, 2.5 and 3 storeys is proposed and I am satisfied that the ‘home zone’
layout and the buildings themselves are both well designed and acceptable.
I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive
impact upon the visual amenity of the area. 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.
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
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.
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 37 car parking spaces would be provided within the site. Of these 17 car parking spaces would be
provided communally while the remainder would be within the curtilage of individual properties. In
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
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.
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.
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”.
The detailed situation with regard to trees is described above. None of the trees are protected by Tree
Preservation Order but the applicant has taken considerable care to ensure that as many of the mature trees
that are in a condition that warrants their retention are indeed kept while at the same time not unduly
restricting the proper development of the site. In discussions over the retention of trees at the entrance to the
site I agree with the applicant that it is better to provide a decent building layout and plant new trees than to
try to accommodate existing trees within a poor layout. The separation distances between the canopies of
the trees and habitable room windows in the proposed dwellings complies with the guidance in the SPG.
Overall, I am therefore satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding
trees.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
As result of my concerns relating to its design and appearance in the
development the applicant has made considerable improvements to both the
proposed layout of the development and the buildings themselves. The
applicant has agreed to the contribution of £82,938.04.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development to be
acceptable, that the scheme proposes an improved quality of layout and 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 dwellings would not be unacceptably
detrimentally affected as a result of this scheme.. 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:
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use unless and until a kerb radii of 4.5
metre dimension, at the junction of the site entrance with Queensway, has been constructed entirely in
accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and
thereafter retained.
3. Development shall not commence unless and until details and samples for the proposed surfacing
materials for the vehicular access from Queensway, car parking spaces, vehicle use and shared surface
areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwellings
shall not be brought into use until the above areas have been surfaced and drained entirely in
accordance with the approved plan.
4. 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.
5. The landscape scheme hereby approved shall be carried out within first planting season 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.
6. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and
implementation, of a surface water regulation system, has been approved by the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.
7. 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 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 will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space
purposes.
8. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to
the occupation of any dwelling.
9. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, all windows for all habitable room shall be
fitted with glazing which has an acoustic performance of not less than 31dB Rw_25dB Rtra and all
bedrooms which overlook Rake Lane or Mere Drive which shall be fitted with glazing that can achieve
sound insulation perfomance of not less than 36dB Rw_29 dB Rtra.
10. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, all rooms shall be fitted with trickle vents
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
with a sound insulation performance of not less than 26dB Dnew and all bedrooms which overlook
Rake Lane or Mere Drive shall be fitted with trickle vents with a sound insulation performance of not
less than 45dB Dnew, and retained thereafter.
11. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report for
the approval of the Local Planning Authority. 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 Local Planning Authority 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 this condition, a site completion report shall validate that all
works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: To facilitate the intervisibility of users of the highway in the interests of road safety in
accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Reason: To facilitate the intervisibility of users of the highway in the interests of road safety in
accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing buildings in the vicinity in accordance with
policy DEV 3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
6. Reason: To reduce the increased risk of flooding.
7. Reason: 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 Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
8. Reason: To ensure the adequate lighting of the development having regard to the amenity of future
occupants.
9. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
10. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The amended plans for this development are: 412/02revD Landscape Proposals received on 21 October
2005 and A/02-01revB Site Layout which was received on 18 October 2005
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the comments of United Utilities, Environment Agency and
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive which were made in respect of this application.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd November 2005
39