PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/51552/FUL
APPLICANT:
Dain Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Site 79 Wellington Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of three - three storey buildings comprising 19 apartments
together with associated car parking and alteration to existing
vehicular access
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a currently vacant site with a detached dis-used garage unit located within the
main open area of the site. The site has a large number of trees and shrubs located on the perimeter. The site
is bounded by Wellington Road to the East and the M602 Motorway to the south. The site is enclosed by the
rear gardens of residential properties from Ellesmere Avenue and Wellington Road. The site area measures
0.27ha.
There is a mixture of residential properties in the area including large detached properties on either side of
Wellington Road. There are also semi-detached and detached properties on Ellesmere Avenue; here there
are a variety of house types including a bungalow. There are also two large detached apartment blocks
located on the corner of Wellington Road and Half Edge Lane and Ellesmere Avenue and Wellington Road.
It is proposed to demolish the garage block on the site and erect three separate apartment blocks. One
would be located at the site entrance fronting Wellington Road, the other two blocks would be located
within the site fronting on to the M602 Motorway. The apartment building fronting Wellington Road will
house 3 two-bedroom apartments over three stories. The main two blocks will house 14 two-bedroom
apartments and 2 one-bedroom apartments. The building will be three stories to the front and two stories to
the rear.
The proposal includes provision for 19 car parking spaces with three available at the rear of block one and
16 available in three locations around blocks one and two. Of the car parking spaces provided two are
allocated for disabled users. There is amenity space provided at the rear of blocks one and two areas
provided at the rear of blocks two and three.
The overall appearance is of a contemporary building composed from a limited palette of modern materials
making subtle reference to the building blocks of the past.
The applicant has provided a tree survey, acoustic report, design statement and sunlight/shadow study to
assist in the determination of this application.
SITE HISTORY
A previous application 05/50211/FUL for the erection of 28 apartments was withdrawn in May 2005.
In September 2005 an application was refused by the Panel for the erection of 24 apartments. There were
two reasons for refusal; firstly a lack of car parking resulting in diminished level of highway safety.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Secondly, the proposal constituted over development of the site by reason of size, massing, height and scale
and would result in a loss of sunlight by reason of over shadowing to the residents of Ellesmere Avenue.
CONSULTATIONS
United Utilities – No objection in principle but provides advice.
Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to a number of conditions relating to a full site
investigation and noise attenuation measures as well as alternative mechanical ventilation.
Police Architectural Liaison Officer –No objection subject to a number of detailed security measures.
Environment Agency – No objections
Highways Agency – No objection.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 20.10.2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Ground to second floor flat 81 Wellington Road
Flat 1 & 2 81 Wellington Road
Flat 1-5 82 Wellington Road
Flat 2-6 82 Wellington Road
Flat 1 & 2 91 Wellington Road
9191A Wellington Road
Flat 1 & 3 92 Wellington Road
Flat 2 92 Wellington Road
Flat 1- 17 Westcliffe, 94 Wellington Road
Flat 2 – 16 Westcliffe, 94 Wellington Road
Flats 1,2,3 86- 88 Wellington Road
1-17 Annesley Court, Monton Road
2-18 Annesley Court, Monton Road
80-94 Wellington Road
81-91 Wellington Road
Flat 1-15, 94 Wellington Road
Flat 2-14, 94 Wellington Road
3-15 Ellesmere Avenue (Including 7A Ellesmere Avenue)
43 Derby Road
99 Houghton Lane
2 Half Edge Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
I have received 8 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Over development
Insufficient car parking and access
Loss of light and sunlight
Over shadowing
Over bearing
Highway safety
Over use of the sewer
Discrepancies in the plans submitted
Development should be reduced to two storey buildings
Noise of gates
Loss of trees
Building line of block one not in keeping with Wellington Road
Developer held a meeting to discuss the application and concerns with neighbours
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: UR4 Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, T13 Car
Parking, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing
Developments,
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and
Crime, H1 Provision of New Housing Development, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking
in New Development.
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Policy H1- the Inspector has recommended that this policy be amended to include a reference to the density
requirements of new residential units per hectare.
DES1 - Recommended minor changes to the policy
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the development, whether the
design, form and layout of the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the development plan and
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
whether the proposal is acceptable in relation to the neighbouring properties on Wellington Road and
Ellesmere Avenue.
The Principle of Residential Development
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 in accessible locations a least 50 dwellings per hectare should be achieved. The
density of the site would be 70 units per hectare. The previous application (05/50752/FUL) had a density of
89 units per hectare. Given the location of Eccles town centre which is located approximately 339m from
the site and the availability of bus routes via Wellington Road and Half Edge Lane (located approximately
63m from the site entrance) I consider the proposal is in accordance with the Draft Policy H1. I also
consider that as the proposal has reduced the density ratio from 89 units to 70 units per hectare that the
proposal has over come the previous reason for refusal of over development of the site.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be considered.
The site has previously been developed and is a brownfield site as detailed in PPG 3, as such, I consider that
the principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential accommodation is acceptable and accords with
the thrust of the policies highlighted above.
Design, Layout and Interface Distances
Adopted policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when dealing
with applications for planning permission. These factors include the location of the proposed development
and its relationship to existing land uses, the relationship to the road network, the potential for noise
nuisance, the visual appearance of the development and the effect on neighbours.
Adopted policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is
satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development and policy.
Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard will be
had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality and
appropriateness of proposed materials.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP requires all new developments to provide
potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact
on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
Block 1
The proposed location of block one is unchanged from the previous planning applications on this site and is
between the site entrance and 81 Wellington Road. 81 Wellington Road does not have any habitable room
windows on its gable elevation facing the proposal. The apartment building will house three separate
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
two-bedroom apartments. I consider the building to be in keeping with the other properties in Wellington
Road. The proposal is located approximately 21.5m from the front elevation of 84 Wellington Road. I
consider that due to the proposed building being comparable in height to the neighbouring properties in the
street on Wellington Road that the separation distances of 21.5m which is the same as the other properties in
Wellington Road is acceptable in this instance. The proposal would not result in an over bearing or
dominant feature in the street scene. I am of the opinion that block one is in accordance with DEV1 and
DEV2 of the adopted UDP and DES7 of the Revised UDP.
Blocks 2 and 3
The site lies across the M602 Motorway from Eccles Town Centre. The area is characterised as residential.
The proposal maintains approximately 32.5m separation distance between the proposed habitable room
windows on the gable elevation of block two to the rear elevations of the semi-detached properties’ of 81
and 83 Wellington Road. This distance combined with the different orientations of the proposal relative to
the properties on Wellington Road is considered acceptable.
The proposal maintains 25m separation distance between the proposed habitable room windows on the rear
elevation of block two and the rear elevation of Annesley Court on Wellington Road due to the proposal
being two storeys to the rear and Annesley Court being three storey buildings the Councils normal
standards would require 24m-separation distance between ground floor and three storey facing habitable
room
windows.
As the proposal maintains sufficient separation distances I do not envisage any significant loss of amenity
or privacy to the residents of Annesley Court and I consider that the proposal will not appear over bearing or
dominant due to the proposal being lower in height that Annesley Court.
The proposed block three maintains 34.5m separation distance to the rear elevation of 3 Ellesmere Avenue
this distance is acceptable and would not result in a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the residents of
3 Ellesmere Avenue.
There is a 23m-separation distance from the nearest part of block three to the rear elevation of 5 Ellesmere
Avenue. There are habitable room windows towards the middle and front of the gable end but the oblique
orientation ensures no over looking or loss of privacy. As such I consider there would be no detrimental
impact on the amenity of the residents of 5 Ellesmere Avenue.
The proposal maintains 31m separation distance between the proposed habitable room windows on the
gable elevation of block two to the rear elevation of 7 Ellesmere avenue. Although this property is a
bungalow the proposal maintains sufficient separation distance in accordance with the Councils normal
standards. As such I consider the proposal would not result in an over bearing or dominant structure. I also
do not consider the proposal will result in any significant loss of amenity in relation to over shadowing.
Block three maintains approximately 27.5m separation distance from the habitable room windows on the
gable elevation to the habitable room windows on the rear elevation of 7a Ellesmere Avenue. This distance
accords with normal standards I also note that whilst 7a Ellesmere Avenue is set further back from the
neighbouring properties and closer to the proposal, that due to the significant different orientation of the
proposal I consider that there will be no detrimental impact on the privacy on the residents of 7a Ellesmere
Avenue.
I consider that the existing boundary treatments will ensure that the privacy of future occupiers of the
proposal would be safeguarded. I consider that this is comparable with other developments within the
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Eccles area and is considered acceptable. I consider that sufficient amenity space is provided within the site
for the future occupiers of the development.
With regard to the design I consider this to be of high quality. I consider that the proposal is in accordance
with the relevant policies of the UDP. I do not consider the proposal will result in an over bearing or
dominant structure. I consider that Block one and Blocks two and three are both well designed and are
sympathetic to the constraints of the site. I also note that the sunlight/shadow study provided by the
applicant shows a significant reduction in the length of shadow cast by the proposed two blocks towards the
properties on Ellesmere Avenue. The study shows that only during December will a shadow be cast on the
rear gardens of 3 and 5 Ellesmere Avenue and Annesley Court. As such I am of the opinion that on balance
the limited shadowing caused during December will not result in a significant detrimental impact on the
amenity of the neighbouring residents and therefore the current proposal has over come the previous reason
for refusal. I consider the buildings to be in keeping with the layout of the site and does not constitute over
development. As such I consider that the previous reason for refusal has been come due to the reduction is
height, scale and massing of blocks two and three.
Car Parking
Policy T13 of the adopted plan 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 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP 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.
The objections received refer to the amount of car parking and access proposed. I note that as parking was
a previous reason for refusal (05/50752/FUL) that the proposed level of car parking would now provide 1
space per apartment compared with 18 car parking spaces for 24 apartments previousily and as such I
consider the proposal has overcome the previous reason for refusal. There would be 19 spaces for the 19
apartments. I consider that the location of the proposal close to Eccles and Monton town centres with
sufficient amenities and public transport is such that the proposed level is acceptable and would accord with
the principles of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 : Transport.
I have no highway objections and I am of the opinion that the level of parking proposed across the site is
acceptable.
Design and Crime
Adopted Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property
security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors including the
provision of security features.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) has commented on the application and is of the opinion that
the scheme is acceptable with appropriate security measures.
The applicant has received a copy of the advice offered by the ALO.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the scheme complies with the policy guidance highlighted above.
Other Issues
The Director of Environmental Services has no objection in principle to the proposal and has not raised any
concerns relating to the amenity of neighbouring residents in relation to the proposed entrance/exit gates. A
condition relating to sound attenutation measures has been attached.
There is only one TPO tree on the site which is the large Ash tree located behind the proposed car park for
Block one. It is proposed to retain this tree and a condition has been attached requiring a substantial fence to
be erected around the tree. I consider that the landscaping scheme conditioned for this development will
allow for a significant amount of replacement tree planting of which the developer has also agreed to. The
other trees on the site have been assessed by the Council Tree Officer on the first planning application
(05/50211/FUL) and where considered not worthy of retention.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Pre-application discussions were held that have resulted in improvements to the scheme and the scheme has
incorporated an internal pedestrian foot path to improve highway safety of users and visitors of the site. The
proposal has also widened the entrance road to 4.5m to comply with the requirements of the Highways
Authority.
CONCLUSION
This is a brownfield site. It is appropriate that it is developed to a high density commensurate with its
location. The scheme is well designed and is of very high quality. The buildings are arranged so that the
street frontage is complemented at the same time provides a high standard of living accommodation and
environment to future residents. The development will have long-range visibility across the M602
Motorway and will be a good addition to the character and appearance of the area. The development will
not result in any significant adverse harm on the amenity of the neighbouring residents. I consider the
proposal will result in a positive contribution to the regeneration of the site.
I consider that the two previous reasons for refusal have been over come as the amount of units on the site
has reduced by a third from the first application and accordingly car parking has risen to 100%. The size,
scale and massing of the blocks two and three have reduced in size and accordingly this has reduced the
presence of the building. As such I do not consider the proposal to constitute over development.
I consider that the development accords fully with the provisions of the development plan and that there is
no detrimental effect on any interest of acknowledged importance. I recommend that permission is granted
subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
2. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report
for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of
ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the
risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily
on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on
services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems
and property. The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the
site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report
shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site. Prior to discharge of the
Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning
Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site
were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall include
full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be
carried out within 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
4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a noise assessment shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This assessment should follow PPG24
guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road network, including the M602
Motorway. The assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures and alternative means of
ventilation 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. Unless agreed
otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all approved noise control and ventilation
measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved and
thereafter retained.
5. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme for the apartment blocks 1, 2 and 3
has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme
shall be implemented concurrently with the first occupation of each block.
6. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use that part of the site to be used by vehicles
shall be laid out, surfaced and sealed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and shall
thereafter be made available at all times the premises are in use.
7. No development shall be started until all the trees within (or overhanging) the site which are the subject
of a Tree Preservation Order, with the exception of those trees clearly shown to be felled on the
submitted plan, have been surrounded by substantial fences which shall extend to the extreme
circumference of the spread of the branches of the trees (or such positions as may be agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority). Such fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall remain until all
development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or
topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.
8. No development shall commence until a scheme of recycling facilities for the apartments has been
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme as is approved
shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
9. Prior to the first occupation of the apartments, the cycle store shall be erected and fully available for use
and shall be retained thereafter unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
10. Prior to commencement of development details of external materials for the walls and roof shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Plannng Authority and the development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved particulars.
11. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme detailing root protection measures shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report should provide a
methodology and extent of work necessary to safeguard the Ash tree identified as T4 in the submitted
arboricultural assessment. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
scheme.
12. There shall be no development on or adjacent to any motorway embankment that shall put any such
embankment or eathworks at risk.
13. No drainage from the proposed development shall run off into the motorway drainage system.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
8. Reason: To encourage reclying of waste materials in accordance with Adopted UDP policy MW11
9. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
11. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
12. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
13. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant should
take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal. Developers must also
seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any operation that involves entry into any
coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations
or other works. Property specific summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and
underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The
Coal Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied prior to
the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent renders all
development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the Council.
3. The applicant is advised that a separate surface water storage system is required to limit the discharge of
surface water to 15 litres per second. The applicant shall contact United Utilities prior to the
commencement of development. The applicant should also discuss the requirement of access needed by
UU in relation to a public sewer. The applicants attention is drawn to UU letter of 30.03.2005 and
should satifisy all the requirements contained within.
4. The permission hereby granted shall relate to the amended plans recieved on the 08.11.2005 which
show the pedestrian route within the site and the correct location of neighbouring properties on
Ellesmere Avenue.
APPLICATION No:
05/51323/HH
APPLICANT:
Lowry Developments
LOCATION:
Lowry House 1 Bank Place Salford M3 6BS
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension with
(re-submission of planning application 04/49814/HH)
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
10
roof
terrace
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Background
At the Panel meeting of 6th October 2005, consideration of this application was deferred for the provision
of further information regarding the wider implications that the proposed extension has on car parking
provision for the Old Court House; the alleged legal easement that allows the residents of the Old Court
House to access a second car park; and the impact on the setting of the listed building.
Parking
In relation to the car parking provision for the Old Court House, I have examined the planning history for
the Old Court House.
On 9th June 1997, a planning application (97/36742/COU) and Listed Building Consent application
(97/36744/LBC) were submitted for the conversion of the Old Court House into 16 dwellings. The proposal
included the demolition of 25 Bank Place (now the applicant property) in order to provide six car parking
spaces and a vehicle access to the site from Bank Place. A Conservation Area Consent application
(97/37771/CON) was also submitted on 16th June 1997 for the demolition of 25 Bank Place.
It would appear that during the consideration of the application at the Planning Committee on 31st July
1997, concerns were expressed regarding the proposed demolition of 25 Bank Place. The applicants
advised that that they would defer the demolition of 25 Bank Place for a period of time in order to examine
the possibility of purchasing part of the adjacent land to provide 16 parking spaces for the Old Court House
conversion.
Conservation Area Consent (97/37771/CON) was granted on 17 September 1997 for demolition of 25 Bank
place with a condition being imposed which prevented the demolition taken place for a period of six months
and for the applicants to proceed to purchase the adjacent land to provide 16 parking spaces for the Old
Court House.
Planning permission (97/36742/COU) and Listed Building consent (97/36744/LBC) was approved on the
same day for the conversion of the Old Court House under the condition which none of the dwellings be
occupied until provision for off-street parking has been completed and made available for the use .
On 18 August 1998, Conservation Area Consent was submitted and approved for the demolition of a single
storey factory unit adjacent to the Old Court house to facilitate the development of the Salford Royal
Hospital and to provide 16 ancillary car parking for the Old Court House (98/38247/CON), with vehicle
access from the Upper Cleminson Street.
At present, the parking spaces for the Old Court House are provided at the former factory site. There are
currently more than 16 parking spaces on the site as the approved vehicle access from the Upper Cleminson
Street has been blocked up to provide additional spaces and the plot of land between the 1 Bank Place and
the Old Court House has also been used for parking. The vehicle access is currently gained from the Bank
Place.
I am of the opinion that the proposed development would only lead to the loss of one parking space. This is
because the application site is currently serving as the main vehicle access to the car park at the Old Court
House. The application site would not be wide enough for parking more than one car whilst at the same time
providing vehicle access.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Although the extension would lead to the loss of one off-street parking space, there is on-street car parking
available on Encombe Place and the Cleminson Street, Furthermore, the site is located in close proximity to
Chapel Street, which is a main route through the city and which has a number of bus services available.
The proposed extension would mean the access to the rear car park would be obstructed. However
alternative vehicular access into the site can be achieved from its original access from Upper Cleminson
Street which has been blocked-up. I do not foresee any unacceptable detrimental impact on highway safety
if this entrance is reinstated.
Right of Way
Regarding to the right of passage across the site, the Council’s solicitor has considered the evidence
submitted by the agent for the Old Court House and the applicant. He is of an opinion that under normal
circumstances the Local Planning Authority should not become embroiled in issues of property rights.
However if such rights involve the use of land then that can be a material planning consideration. The grant
of planning permission does not convey a warranty that the developer has a legal right to carry out the
development. The onus is on the developer to procure any necessary consents from interested third parties.
I have concluded above that, having regard to the planning history for the Old Court House and in particular
the approved parking provision, approval of this application would not have an unduly material effect on
the availability of the parking for residents of the Old Court House.
Impact on the setting of the listed building
In relation to the impact on the setting of the listed building, Policies EN12 state that the Council will not
normally permit any development which would detract from the architectural and historic character to the
setting of a Listed Building, something that is reiterated in Policy CH4. The proposed extension is set at the
rear of the Old Court House and 1 Bank Place, therefore it would not be observable from the street scene.
The scale and the quality of the proposed extension would also harmonized with the surrounding
development, This view has been agreed by the Conservation Officer. Thus I do not foresee the proposed
extension would have an adverse impact upon the setting of the Old Court House.
I have received two further objections in response to the planning application publicity. The issues such as
loss of car parking space, excessive size of extension, right of way, loss of natural light, out of character and
problems with future maintenance has been already identified in the previous report and the additional
observation. In relation to the problem for manoeuvre, I do not foresee that the extension would affect the
manoeuvrability as the proposed extension would not projected any closer to the existing parking spaces.
I therefore consider the application is acceptable and that planning permission should be granted. My
previous observations are as follows:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of a single storey rear extension at The Lowry House, 1 Bank Place,
Salford. The proposal is located within Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area and the site is located
within Chapel Street regeneration area.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
There is a three-storey Grade II listed residential apartment (Old Court House) and a car park situated at the
east and west hand side of the site respectively. The site itself is currently using as a car parking spaces for
the applicant and the residents at the Old Court House.
The proposed single storey extension will project total 3.1 m in height (plus a 1.8m in height railing set back
2.1m at the roof) and 9m to the rear of the property. A 4m x3.5m courtyard have been introduce between the
existing and the proposing extension, the proposal also include a 2.2m high mesh screening to the courtyard
and a high level obscure glazing window position 2m above the floor at the right hand side elevation.
SITE HISTORY
There are three relevant planning histories relating to the application site.
On the 16th June 1997, Conservation Area Consent has been approved for demolition of the property at 25
Bank Place (Reference 97/36771/CON).
On the 20th December 2001, planning permission has been approved for the erection of railings and
pedestrian and vehicular gates to front elevation (Reference 01/43488/FUL).
On the 11th of February 2005, planning permission has been refused for the erection of two-storey rear
extension. It is because the two storey rear extension would by reason of its size and sitting result in an
over-bearing and dominant structure on the neighbouring residents living at the Old Court House and is
contrary to Policy DEV8 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, Policy DES7 of the
First Deposit Draft Replacement City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, and HH3 of Supplementary
Planning Guidance - House Extensions (Reference 04/49814/HH).
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on the 7th September 2005.
A conservation area site notice was displayed on 30th September 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 Encombe Place, Salford
Flat 3,5,7,9,11,15,17,19,21,23,25,27,29,31,33,35 Old Court House
Solicitors, 123 Deansgate
Th Studio, 3 St Georges Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received ten letters of representation /objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:
Loss of car parking space
Excessive size of extension
Right of way over the land
Loss of natural light
Out of character with conservation area
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Problems with future maintenance of Old Court House
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN11 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
EN13 - Works to Listed Buildings and Buildings Within Conservation Areas
DEV2- Good Design
DEV8 - House Extensions
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies:
CH5 - Works Within Conservation Areas
DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8- Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issue relating to this application are the acceptability of the design of the extension
proposed, the impact the proposed extension may have on the architectural and historic character of the
Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area and the residential privacy and amenity currently enjoyed by
neighbouring residents.
Policies EN13, EN11 and DEV2 states that the Council will not normally permit any development which
would detract from the architectural and historic character of a building within conservation area,
something that is reiterated in Policy CH5. In order to do this, the Council will seek to ensure that
extensions are in keeping with the character of the building. The proposed extension has been designed to
respect the character of in terms of its size, location and proposed materials. Consequently it would preserve
the character and appearance of Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area. The proposal has been also
assessed by the Conservation Officer, who has approved the design and the appearance does not envisage
any detrimental impact on the character of the conservation area.
Policy DEV8 state that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or light,
something which is reiterated in DES7 and DES8. The location and positioning of the proposed extension is
such that a distance of 9m between the habitable room windows of the proposed extension and the habitable
room windows of properties opposite. In normal circumstances a minimum distance of 21m would be
required between facing habitable room windows. However, in this circumstance the proposed window
would be positioned 2m above the floor, which is well above head height level and it proposed to be
obscure glazed. It is therefore the right hand side elevation of the single storey extension could be consider
treated as a blank gable wall. Hence, it complies with the separation distance, as a minimum distance of 9m
would be required between facing habitable room windows and a blank gable wall for single storey
extension. In this instance I consider this separation distance sufficient to negate any serious impact on the
amenity of the residents in these flats in terms of outlook and visual amenity.
The proposal will also involve the erection of a 1.8m high mesh screening at the roof of the extension. I
envisage that it would not result an overlooking or overshadowing impact to the neighbouring residents at
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
the Old Court House. It is because the 1.8m height fence would provide an overhead screening which avoid
direct overlooking and provide privacy to the neighbourhoods and the 2.1m set back from the ground floor
extension would provide a reasonable 11m distance between the proposed extension and the Old Court
House, it vitally negate the affect of loss of natural lighting and ventilation for the residents in the Old Court
House.
I therefore consider this new extension sufficient to negate any overbearing impact on the amenity of the
residents in the Old Court House in terms of natural lighting and visual amenity.
Several objections have been received relating to legal easement of right of way and car parking, the
applicant has submitted a Certificate A so the proposal is being built solely on the ground owned by the
applicant as such I do not consider the access the car parking a material consideration in the determination
of this application.
I also do not consider the objection point on post development maintenance of the Old Court House a
material planning consideration.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Three amended plans were received in response to recommendations made by the Planning Officer, which
secured improvements to the original submission to ensure that the proposed extension would emulate the
distinct character of the surrounding properties and area in accordance with policies DEV7, DES7 and DES
8.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposed development complies with the relevant policies of the adopted Unitary Development
Plan and the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan. It would not therefore detract from the character or
setting of the building to which it would be attached nor would it have an adverse impact upon the character
of the Roe Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area. It would make effective use of the site and protected
the privacy and amenity of the neighbourhoods. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
3. Prior to first occupation the glazing for the element of the extension facing the Old Court House shall be
obscured, and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
4. No development shall be commenced unless and until full details of the wooden louvred screening have
been submitted to and app4oved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The screening shall be
erected in accordance with the approved details prior to first use of the roof area and retained as such
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
thereafter.
5. The use of the flat roof area of the extension hereby permitted shall be limited at all times to that area
enclosed by the wooden louvred screening.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
05/51432/FUL
APPLICANT:
Salford Roman Catholicism
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Sydney Street, Nansen Street, Greenland Street And
Goulden Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a new single storey primary school and 26 place nursery
together with associated landscaping, car parking, new turning head
and construction of new vehicular and pedestian accesses and closure of
footpaths and highways within the site.
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This site is the bounded by Sydney Street to the north, Nansen Street to the east, Green land and Alexander
Street to the south and Goulden Street to the west. The site is to the west of Langworthy Road. The site has
been occupied by terraced housing for many years. At present the site includes some existing housing
whilst part of the site has already been cleared, permission has previously been granted for the demolition of
all the houses within the site.
Planning permission is sought for the construction of a single storey primary school, with associated car
parking, boundary treatments, and landscaping. The new school will be used by St James and All Souls RC
Primary Schools who will amalgamate to this site. The school is designed with a modern curving metal roof
and with walls consisting of metal, wood and glass panels. The school grounds include a grass playing field,
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
hardplay areas and habitat areas. Access for the pupils and staff will be from Greenland Street whilst access
for servicing will be along Sydney Street. Proposed boundary treatments are 2.1m high fencing with a type
of prickly hedge to 1 metre and climbing roses. Boundary treatment around the multiuse games area will be
3 metres high where this backs onto properties on Woodgrange Close and Fairbrook Drive. The proposal
will involve the closure of the footpath between Sydney Street and Amos Street and the closure of the
following residential streets; Southern Street between 35 & 46 and 61 & 76, Glenridding Street between 1
& 2and 29 & 36, Norway Street between 51 & 44 and 71 & 72, Harmsworth Street between 47 & 54 and 81
& 94, Amos Street between 1 & 2 and 52.
The applicant has submitted a supporting statement, prepared by the Seedley and Langworthy Partnership
Board, that explains the background to the reasons for locating the two schools on this one site:
“In 2001/2002 a decision was made by the RC Diocese and respective school governing bodies in
discussion with the Local Education Authority to explore the opportunity to amalgamate St James’
and All Souls RC Primary Schools on one site. This proposal has the support of the LEA.
The decision to amalgamate was made on the basis of a need to improve efficiency within many
inner city schools. A primary school review had identified high levels of surplus places within
many schools and projected a continuing fall in the number of pupils.
At the same time the City Council had commenced discussions with TESCO regarding the
feasibility of a foodstore development in Pendleton. The Council had long aspired to an anchor
foodstore within this district centre to boost the viability and vitality of the centre. However there
had been a number of issues hindering this including lack of developer interest, a shortage of
available land and fragmented ownership, mostly private, within the district centre. Throughout
2001 and 2002 works progressed to explore land assembly options, prepare Supplementary
Planning Guidance for the foodstore development and identify relocation sites for existing
activities/uses, which would be displaced as part of the strategic land assembly; this included St
James’ RC Primary School.
After full consideration of all of the main demolition areas within Seedley and Langworthy the
schools unanimously selected the site of proposed clearance adjacent to Glendinning Street as the
only site available capable of meeting their location requirements for a new combined school. The
schools felt it was essential for the new school to be in a similar central position in relation to their
existing and future catchment. The Glendinning Street site is broadly in the middle of the two
schools’ current catchment area.
The schools rejected the other development sites within Seedley and Langworthy and an alternative
in Weaste behind the Salford Reds Stadium. The schools felt that all three alternative sites were not
suitably located for their current and future catchment areas. They considered the site to the south
of St Ambrose Church was isolated and that general access and the internal road layout presented a
safety risk for young children travelling to and from school. They had concerns about the
uncertainty of re-development proposals for the area north of Langworthy Park and whether the
re-development would be compatible with school uses/activities. There was a strong view also that
it would be unacceptable for a school to be overlooked from the park.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
In June 2002 the Seedley and Langworthy Partnership Board approved the school proposal and
welcomed the early commitment to the area. It considered that the development of the school
would bring added benefits to the area in a similar way as the foodstore. These included: Added private investment confidence
Added resident confidence in future of the area
Complements other SRB project activity within the Langworthy Road village centre
Improved trade and business to local shops and offices
Opportunity to attract new business and enterprise
Opportunity for local employment and training
Provision of an attractive modern facility
Diversifies range of services and facilities available in the local area
The Board was advised that DfES standards for the planned school size would require a larger site
to be assembled than had originally been identified in the area masterplan. The Board approved the
demolition of a further 31 properties including1-29 Glendinning Street, 38-66 Goulden Street and 4
Sydney Street.
In the meantime the City Council, on behalf of the Board, has been progressing site assembly.
The statement concludes by stating the Seedley and Langworthy Board supports the proposal.
The application has been amended following the consultation period. The applicant has also explained that
highway closure orders will be sought if this application is approved.
SITE HISTORY
In 2004, prior notification for the demolition of dwellings was approved at 38 To 66 Goulden Street And 4
Sydney Street, Salford 6 (04/49382/DEMCON).
In 2004, prior notification for the demolition of dwellings was approved at 33A To 61 Southern Street
Including 6 Sydney Street And 5 Alexander Street (04/49383/DEMCON).
In 2004, prior notification for the demolition of dwellings was approved at 46 TO 76
Southern Street (04/49384/DEMCON)
In 2004, prior notification for the demolition of dwellings was approved at 1 TO 29
Glendinning Street (Alexander Street) 04/49385/DEMCON
In 2004, prior notification for the demolition of dwellings was approved at 2 TO 36
Glendinning Street (Alexander Street) 04/49386/DEMCON
In 2004, prior notification for the demolition of dwellings was approved at 1 TO 45
Harmsworth Street 04/49387/DEMCON
In 2004, prior notification for the demolition of dwellings was approved at 47 TO 81
Harmsworth Street 04/49379/DEMCON
In 2004, prior notification for the demolition of dwellings was approved at 2 TO 52
Amos Street 04/49390/DEMCON
In 2004, prior notification for the demolition of dwellings was approved at 54 To 94 Harmsworth Street
And 1 Amos Street 04/49380/DEMCON
In 2004, prior notification for the demolition of dwellings was approved at 61 TO 107
Nansen Street 04/49381/DEMCON
In 2002, prior notification for the demolition of dwellings was approved at 37-41 Norway Street
02/44163/DEMCON
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No Objections
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends a condition requiring a ground
condition report and a condition requiring noise level from fixed plant is limited.
Central Salford URC – No objections
GM Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Objected strongly to the application prior to the amendments
except for the closure of the footpath between Amos Street and Sydney Street which they consider should
be closed. Following consultation over the amended scheme GMP made the following comments:
“The drawing provided suggests a number of design improvements. Based on the revised drawing,
I make the following comments:
* Site boundary details remain lacking and per our meeting, I recommend this be of secure
construction, preferably welded wire mesh fencing with a high density of mesh or decorative
railings
to
a
recommended
height
of
2.4m.
* The drawing references 'child and parent access areas to have seating and shade for
waiting/congregating' and I express concern over the potential for this to become an attractive
area after hours for youths. If considered absolutely essential it should be sited behind a secure
boundary and under maximum natural surveillance.”
Ramblers Association – Object to the footpath closure between Amos Street and Sydney Street.
Open Spaces Society – Objected verbally to the footpath closure between Amos Street and Sydney Street.
GM Pedestrians Association – No comments received
Peak and Northern Footpath Association – No comments received
United Utilities – No objections but state they will not permit building over mains, sewers and electricity
apparatus within the application site with a 6 metre easement being required. I have provided this
information to the applicant who has confirmed no UU apparatus will be built over and easements will be
respected.
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on the 7th October 2005.
A press notice was published on 6th October 2005.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
21-45 odd & 22-52 even Harmsworth Street
25-79 odd & 26-72 even Goulden Street
18 & 20 Nona Street
15-23 odd & 18-30 even Fram Street
1-31 odd & 2-32 even Fairbrook Drive
1-5 odd & 2-8 even Emmeline Grange
10-20 even Alexander Street
39-57 odd & 52-126 even Nansen Street
53-83 odd & 26-68 even Langton Street
1-14 Woodgrange Close
2-6 even Trail Street
2 & 3-17 odd Sydney Street
1-12 Springwell Close
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
23-33 odd & 34-44 Southern Street
63-127 odd Seedley Park Road
17-33 odd & 20-32 Norway Street
133 – 219 odd Langworthy Road including 165a, 197a, 213a, 157a, 173a
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:Congregation of youths & miscreant activity
Noise and activity impact to 73 Norway Street
Demolition of 6 Sydney Street
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 – Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
H7/2 Housing Area Improvement and Renewal – Private Sector
SC4 Improvement/Replacement of Schools
R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 Good Design
DEV4 Design and Crime
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EHC7 Site for the Provision of a New School
Other policies:
EHC1 Provision and Improvement of Education, Heath and Community Facilities
DES1 Respecting Context
DES2 Circulation and Movement
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 Design and Crime
A1 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
INSPECTORS REPORT
EHC0 – Recommends modifications to the reasoned justification
EHC7 - No modifications
DES1 – Minor modifications general thrust remains the same
DES2 – Recommends modifications to the reasoned justification
DES7 – No modifications
DES11 – No modifications
A1 – Minor modifications general thrust remains the same
A2 – No modifications
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the use and redevelopment of the site as a school,
the closure of public rights of way, access and servicing, design and crime issues and the appearance of the
school.
Policy SC4 explains the Council will endeavour to provide improved and replacement school facilities
subject to availability of adequate resources. The policy seeks to ensure that the condition of school
buildings and infrastructure is compatible with current requirements. Policy ECH1 also promotes the
improvement of schools where sports provision is provided on site and residential amenity and
environmental quality is not harmed as a result. This policy also requires that access be available from a
wide range of transport modes. Policy EHC7 allocates the site for a new school to replace the existing
school close to Salford Precinct. Policy H7/2 explains the housing stock in the area is generally poor with
insufficient open space.
Policies DEV4 and DEV11 require development be designed to minimise the potential for criminal activity.
DEV1 lists a number of criteria that any development must have regard to. Included are the size and density
of buildings, neighbouring amenity, access arrangements, parking and landscaping. DES1 explains the
Council will seek to ensure development respects the character of the local area with respect to buildings,
landscaping and to have a general high standard of design. Policy A1 requires that a travel plan be
submitted where appropriate to ensure access by other means than the private car whilst Policy DEV5
allows this to be controlled through the imposition of conditions. Policy DES2 requires design and layout of
development is such that conflicts between users of the highway are minimised. Policy A2 explains where
development extinguishes a public right of way such development where it is demonstrated that adequate
levels of access for the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists will be maintained to, around and where
appropriate through the site.
Principle of Development
Whilst the area based policy H7/2 seeks the improvement of the existing housing stock this application site
forms one small part of the overall area based policy and improvements have been undertaken to houses
within the area based policy. I do not consider this proposal is contrary to policy H7/2 and approval has
been granted for the demolition of the existing houses within the site and demolition has indeed begun. I
have received an objection form a resident of 6 Sydney Street to the demolition of that property to make for
the school. Approval has already been granted for the demolition of that property. Policy EHC7 allocates
this site as a replacement to allow for regeneration at Salford Precinct. Following the Public Inquiry into the
draft replacement UDP the Inspectors report recommends no change to the allocation of this site as a new
school thereby increasing the weight to be attached to this draft policy. I consider the principle of a new
school to be in accordance with policies SC4, ECH1 and EHC7.
Closure of Rights of Way
The footpath societies did not raise objection to the allocation of the site as a new school within the review
of the UDP. The two footpath societies that have commented only raise issue with the loss of the footpath
between Amos Street and Sydney Street. The allocation for the school abuts the rear gardens of houses on
Fairbrook Drive and Woodgrange Close, which is where the existing path runs. A route between Amos
Street and Sydney Street would still remain via Fairbrook Drive, which is no more commodious than the
route along the backs of houses on Woodgrange Close and Fairbrook Drive. I have received objection to the
opening of Woodgrange Close onto Sydney Street on the basis that youths may congregate. Woodgrange
Close is not proposed to be opened. I consider the closure of the footpath between Sydney Street and Amos
Street is not contrary to adopted and emerging policies of the UDP.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Design and Crime
The architectural liaison unit have confirmed they find the revised scheme to be an improvement with the
exception of the height of the perimeter fencing and access to the parent/child entrance. I consider a fencing
height of 2.4m to be excessive in relation to residential amenity given the tight grain of residential
properties around the site. The 2.1m high security fencing would in my opinion provide a reasonable
boundary treatment for school security and for surrounding residential amenity. The applicant has
confirmed that a revised entrance will be designed in conjunction with the Architectural Liaison Unit and
for expediency I am satisfied that this can be controlled through the imposition of a condition.
I have received objection to the position of the servicing turning area from residents of 73 & 75 Norway
Street who are concerned about possible miscreant activity outside their homes. The existing access to these
homes is isolated at present with very little natural surveillance. The proposed extension of Sydney Street
together with the openness of the school site, whilst not addressing the slightly isolated position of these
two houses, would improve natural surveillance of these properties from the existing position. I consider
the application accords with policies DEV4 and DES11.
Access and Servicing
The applicant proposes all servicing to be undertaken from Sydney Street and pupil and staff access from
Greenland Street. I am satisfied with the proposed highway layout and propose a condition to ensure the
Sydney Street extension is completed prior to the first use of the school and that this entrance is only used
for servicing. I do not consider that the servicing for a primary school would cause undue loss of amenity to
properties on Norway Street. I consider the level of parking proposed to be acceptable but would
recommend the imposition of a condition requiring a travel plan be implemented that includes safer routes
to school for pupils and encourages sustainable travel patterns for staff.
Design and Appearance
I consider the single storey structure together with curving roof and wood, metal and glass elevations to be
acceptable with regard to policies DP3, DEV1, DEV2 and DES1. I recommend a condition be attached to
ensure the quality of materials used is acceptable. The applicant has submitted a landscape scheme with the
application which I find appropriate for the use as a school and in this setting close to surrounding
residential properties.
Matters not covered above
I received an objection to the turning head behind 32 Fairbrook Drive on the basis the occupier would prefer
to purchase this land and extend their garden area. The amended plan has deleted this turning head, Amos
Street can be utilised instead, and the schools wildlife area has been extended, with some potential for this
rear garden to be extended.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Through discussions at pre-application stage and during the processing of the application the design and
layout of the school have been improved.
CONCLUSION
The site is allocated for a school and its re-use as a school is in accordance with planning policies, is
supported by the Seedley and Langworthy Partnership Board and will enhance the ongoing regeneration of
the area. Whilst the footpath between Amos and Sydney Streets is to be closed I consider the alternative
routes available to be not too commodious especially given the desire of the Architectural Liaison Unit and
local residents that such a route is not left open for design crime reasons. I consider the addition of climbing
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
roses to the 2.1m high perimeter fencing to be appropriate for this site which is in close proximity to
residential properties and consider that the design and crime issues have been addressed. I also consider the
appearance of the building to be suitable for this site within the regeneration area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
3. The landscape scheme hereby approved 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.
4. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
5. Prior to the first use of the school the new adoptable road and footpath as shown on the approved plan
02604/L/B01/A shall be completed and shall be available for use and thereafter retained.
6. The vehicular access and egress to the school from Sydney Street shall only be used for servicing for
deliveries and refuse and recycling collection of the school and for no other purpose whatsoever.
7. Within one month of the first occupation of the school, hereby approved, the school shall submit a
travel plan for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The travel plan shall include details on
safer routes to school measures for students and parents and shall also include measures for sustainable
travel to and from work for members of staff. The plan shall also set out a timetable which shall specify
when the approved measures shall be implemented by. Once approved the measures shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved plan unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
8. No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the Report) has been
submitted to and approved in writing by 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 investigation shall where
appropriate include a risk assessment and an options appraisal including the remedial strategy.
The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including its risk
assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial strategy.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to
the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works
were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
9. Noise from fixed polant and machinery on the site (LAEQT) shall not exceed the background level
(LA90t) as measured at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive properties at any time.
10. No development shall be commenced unless and until the appropriate order has been made for the
closure of the public right of way as indicated on the approved plan.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
5. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
6. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
7. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area and to introduce sustainable travel patterns in
accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and A10 of the Revised
Deposit Draft UDP.
8. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
10. To ensure the appropriate order is obtained and for the avoidance of doubt in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. 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.
2. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 8th November 2005.
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
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
(Tel: (0161) 737 0551
4. The applicant and developer should be aware the recommendations made within the Department for
Education and Employment publication - Building Bulletin 87, Guidelines for Environmental Design
in Schools - ISBN 0-11-271013-1.
APPLICATION No:
05/51546/TEL56
APPLICANT:
T Mobile (UK) Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent Car Park At Junction Of Parkway And Kenyon Way
Little Hulton
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the installation of a 11m high telegraph pole
supporting three shrouded antenna and two equipment cabinets
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application would be situated at the back of a public footpath on Parkway, Little Hulton. To the rear of
the footpath is a small car park with a public green beyond that. The area is predominantly residential in
nature.
The proposal seeks to erect an 11m telegraph style telecommunications pole and two equipment cabinets
and ancillary development. The associated cabinets would measure approximately 0.9m wide X 0.8m deep
X 1.24m high and 0.6m wide X 0.5m deep X 1.2m high.
SITE HISTORY
An application for the same proposal was refused in August 2005 (05/50984/TEL56) as it was considered
the applicant had not considered enough alternative sites. Additional alternative sites have been
investigated, including Lester Road Industrial Estate and playing fields south of Ashawe Terrace.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 27th October 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
154 Kenyon Way
11 – 16 Pennington Close
54 – 66, 64A and 66A Parkway
17 New Lester Way
62A Briar Hill Avenue
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
10 Halstead Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection and a petition against the scheme containing ninety names in
response to the planning application.
No specific reasons for objections have been received
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
SC14 – Telecommunications, DEV1 Development Criteria
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
DEV1 - Telecommunications
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy DEV1 – recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains largely the
same.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the need for the installation, any health issues
resulting from the installation and the visual impact of the installation on the amenity of the area.
Policy SC14 of the Adopted UDP states that permission for telecommunications development will normally
be granted where there would not be an unacceptable impact on visual or residential amenity. In
determining such applications, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the significance of the
proposed development as part of a national telecommunications network, whether there are any suitable
alternative sites and whether there would be an unacceptable visual impact in terms of siting and design.
Policy DEV1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP states that proposal for telecommunications
development will only be permitted where a number of criteria are met, including where there would not be
an unacceptable impact on visual or residential amenity, where the operator has demonstrated compliance
with all relevant ICNIRP standards, there is a need for the development, the rationale for site selection has
been outlined and where pre-application discussions have taken place.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
In accordance with Policy DEV1, the applicants have submitted a declaration which shows that the
proposed equipment complies with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines. I am therefore satisfied that
sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there should be no adverse health implications
as a result of this proposal.
I consider that in visual terms this proposal is acceptable. The monopole would be 11m in height and would
have the appearance of a wooden telegraph pole including foot rests. The proposal would be situated at the
back of the public footpath. There are street lights in the vicinity measuring approximately 8m in height.
The proposal would be 20m from the closest residential property. Given the proposed design I would not
consider the proposal to be an obtrusive feature in the street scene.
The applicants have demonstrated that a number of other potential sites have been investigated in the
surrounding area, but were either not feasible or permission was not given by landowners. The sites
investigated include Lester Road Industrial Estate, Community Centre Kenyon Way and United Utilites
Sewage Works.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the need for the installation, any health issues
resulting from the installation and the visual impact of the installation on the amenity of the area. The
applicant has submitted a declaration which shows that the proposed equipment complies with ICNIRP
public exposure guidelines and so I have no objection on health grounds. I am satisfied that there is a need
for an installation in this area and that the development proposed would not have a detrimental impact on
the amenity of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
APPLICATION No:
05/50444/FUL
APPLICANT:
Peel Investments (North) Limited
LOCATION:
Block C Harbour City, Dock 9 Broadway Salford 5
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one eight storey block comprising 80 apartments with
enclosed car parking on two levels together with A3, A4 or A5
commercial units on ground floor
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This site comprises a portion of the larger Dock 9 site close to the junction of the Quays Road and
Anchorage Quay. The site is bounded by the Anchorage Office building to the east, dockside and Erie Basin
to the south, the Alexandra office building to the west and the Quays Road/Metrolink and industrial units to
the north. The site currently has hoardings around it as ground works have commenced following an earlier
consent at the site. Members will recall that in March 2004, reserved matters were approved for the siting,
design and external appearance of two residential blocks (one 20 storeys, one 9 storeys) comprising 194
apartments and one office block and two storey enclosed car park (04/47617/REM).
Planning permission is sought for the erection of one eight storey block containing 80 apartments enclosed
car parking and retail units fronting the dockside. This proposed eight storey building is proposed on the site
of the previously approved office block and would be similar in footprint height and design. The proposal
includes 74 parking spaces, including four disabled spaces, and motorcycle and bicycle parking at ground
and first floor levels. Two double height food and drink units are proposed at ground floor level fronting
Eerie Basin. One flat is proposed at first floor level with floors two to eight accommodating the other 79
flats. A mixture of one and two bedroom flats are proposed, each with a small private balcony. As with the
office approval the developer proposes to install an 8m wide dockside walkway between the development
and the Dockside.
The applicant has submitted a design statement which explains the architects justification for the form and
mass of the proposed building. This statement explains that the proposed block does not deviate
significantly from the originally approved building and fits in with the design ethos of the 20 storey and
nine storey residential towers. The statement also explains the retail uses will encourage the use of the
Dockside Walkway.
SITE HISTORY
Wider Dock 9 Site (including this site)
In 2000, Outline permission was granted for a mixed use development including 600 residential units and
90,473sq.m. of office development (97/36749/OUT).
In 2003, outline planning permission was granted for a mixed use development including 600 residential
units, 90,473sq.m. of office space and 3716sq.m. of leisure space (03/46042/OUT).
The Application Site
In March 2004, reserved matters were approved for the siting, design and external appearance of two
residential blocks (one 20 storeys, one 9 storeys) comprising 194 apartments, one office block and a two
storey enclosed car park (04/47617/REM).
In 2005, reserved matters approval was given for the erection of siting, design and external appearance and
access in respect of 210 apartments, 336m.sq of restaurants/bars and 195 car parking spaces
(05/50499/REM).
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No known features of archaeological interest.
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received, contaminated land conditions required on
neighbouring sites.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – Explains that public transport links are good and that
high density development such as this is supported by GMPTE.
Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions relating to foul drainage.
Lowry Development Company – No comments received
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council – No comments received
United Utilities – No objections subject to the applicant agreeing drainage details with United Utilities and
the Environment Agency and securing appropriate safeguarding or diversion of a water main.
Highways Agency – No objections
Grain Wharf Residents Association – No comments received
Grain Wharf Management Company – No objections received
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – No comments received
Peter Hunter – No objections
GM Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments received
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by way of site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
150 – 182 even The Quays Road
The Victoria, The Quays Road
Capstan House, The Quays Road
5 and 37 Spinaker Court, Broadway
Units 1 & 2, 3, 5, 7 Washington Centre, Broadway
Batley, Broadway
Freshbake, Broadway
112 – 116 even, 120, 126 – 130 even, 200 and 210 all Broadway
6 – 12 even Michigan Avenue
30 – 58 even Winnipeg Quay
60 – 97 even Vancouver Quay
54 – 68 even & 43 – 53 odd St Lawrence Quay
15 – 137 odd Labrador Quay
Geglec, Central Park and Batley all Ohio Avenue
Bupa, Anchorage Quay
BUPA, Bloomsbury, London
Barclays Bank, Anchorage Quay
1A, 1 – 4 Anchorage Quay
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
News Centre, Anchorage Quay
Unit 1 Anchorage Quay
Wright Health Group, Anchorage Quay
Securicor, Anchorage Quay
Youth Centre, Anchorage Quay
Food Mountain, Anchorage Quay
Venture Factors PLC, Anchorage Quay
FM Insurance, Anchorage Quay
Trillium, Anchorage Quay
Allianz Cornhill, Anchorage Quay
AMEC, Anchorage Quay
17 Lansdowne Road, Monton
GVA Grimley, Fountain Street, Manchester
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters in response to the planning application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC11/1 Sites for Office Development
Other policies:DEV 1 - Development Criteria, DEV2 - Good Design, H1 Housing, H6 and H11 Open Space
Provision Within New Housing Developments, EN20 Pollution Control
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/3 Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context, DES5 – Tall Buildings, DES3 Design of Public Space, DES4
Relationship to Public Space, DES5 Tall Buildings, DES6 Waterside Development, DES7 Amenity of
Users and Neighbours, H8 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments.
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
H1 – Recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains largely the same.
DES7 – Recommended no change to this policy.
H8 – Recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
MX1/3 – Recommended minor changes to the policy and change to the reasoned justification setting out a
brief vision for the area.
DES1 - Recommended minor changes to the policy.
DES2 - Recommended minor changes to the policy.
DES3 – No changes
DES5 – No changes
DES6 - Recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains largely the same.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of residential development, scale and
mass of the development, the appearance, proximity and interaction with public realm, access and servicing
and also open space requirement.
Policy EC11/1 seeks office development on this site whilst policy MX1/3 requires a mix of uses including
housing, offices and retail and food and drink uses. MX1/3 also requires the necessity to have regard to
regeneration of the wider area. Policy DEV1 seeks, inter alia, development that respects surrounding
buildings and uses and DEV2 requires good quality design. Policy DES1 also requires regard to be had to
the surrounding townscape, impact upon views and vistas and the areas horizontal and vertical rhythms as
well as the quality and durability of proposed materials. Policy DES5 specifically refers to tall buildings
and states they can contribute positively to an area given the efficient use of land but impact upon the
surrounding area of the roofline, silhouette and materials needs to be carefully considered. DES6 requires
development to respect the waterside setting.
Principle of Development
The principle of residential, office and retail development has been established through the outline consent
for the wider Dock 9 site and the recent reserved matters application on the site. The development of this
part of the wider Dock 9 site for residential instead of office development is however a key issue. I am
satisfied the level of office development approved within the extant outline permission can still be
implemented on the rest of Dock 9. The proposed 80 flats would be adjacent to the existing Alexandra and
Victoria Office developments, the consented 210 apartments and the Anchorage Office development and
retail/food and drink uses. The total number of units approved through reserved matters and full
applications exceeds the 600 approved in the outline application (03/46042/OUT) however I do not
consider this contravenes the thrust of policy MX1/3. I am satisfied there would still be a genuine mix of
uses on Dock 9 should this application be approved and this would not lead to a domination of one type of
land use. I consider the proposed residential and retail uses would be in accordance with mixed use policy
for the area.
Residential Amenity, Scale, Mass & Design
The proposed block would be 2m taller than the approved office block. I do not consider that there would be
a significant impact on any surrounding residential amenity through loss of light as a result of this proposal.
I also consider the separation distance of 26m to the adjacent consented apartments to be acceptable at this
location.
Policy DES6 requires that waterside development should provide a safe and overlooked walkway that
provide pedestrian links and where appropriate introduce active uses at ground floor level. The applicant
proposes to construct a 12m wide dockside walkway which would complete the dockside walkway around
Eerie and Huron Basins and the introduction of food and drink uses would further satisfy the thrust of the
policy. I consider that the scale, mass and external appearance reflects the context of modern design and tall
buildings and is very similar to the scheme previously approved on the site on Salford Quays and is
therefore consistent policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1, DES2, DES5 and DES6.
Parking and Access
The existing site was used as open commuter parking however this use has ceased following the erection of
hoardings around the site. I consider that the 74 spaces on site for the 80 apartments (92.5%) to be
appropriate at this accessible location, with Metrolink running past the site, and is in accordance with
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
maximum parking standards of the revised UDP. I have no objections to the level of traffic created.
Amendments to the scheme have improved the servicing for the retail units with access gained via a
covered link between the proposed apartments and adjacent approved apartments. I recommend a condition
to ensure that servicing of the A3, A4, A5 units is further controlled. The developer will be required to enter
into a Section 278 for the development.
Dockside Walkway and Open Space Requirement
The proposal satisfies the requirement under policy DES6 for a dockside walkway. I am satisfied that
introduction of food and drink uses fronting the walkway would increase the usability of the proposed
walkway. Each apartment has useable space on balconies. The outline permission also requires the
development of an area of open space within the remainder of Dock 9. The proposed 80 units on this site are
subject to the requirements of policies H6, H11 and H8 and also SPG7. The applicant proposes to provide a
commuted sum in lieu of the additional open space on site. The commuted sum is £123,380 and would go
toward children's play-space, informal open-space and/or local environmental improvements.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
A section 106 Obligation has been negotiated for open space, children’s play space and local environmental
improvements. Protection of the 12m wide dockside walkway with planting and access around the building
has been ensured. The landscaping of such areas will be subject to a condition. Servicing arrangements have
been improved through negotiation and will be controlled via condition. The external appearance of the
development has been improved through negotiation with the applicant.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the scheme would produce a good quality development that would sit comfortably within the
existing high density area of The Quays. I am satisfied with the level of parking proposed at this accessible
location. I also consider that there would not be a significant detrimental impact upon nearby commercial or
residential properties. I recommend the application be approved subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal
agreement under Section 106 and Section 278 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to secure
the provision of improved local open space/play equipment and off site highway works.
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls and roofs
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 74 car parking spaces shall
be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and such
spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
4. No development shall be commenced unless and until a lighting scheme has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and
therefater retained prior to the first occupation of the development.
5. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing servicing and delivery times
and methods for the functioning of the retail unit(s) has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. Once approved such scheme shall be implemented for deliveries and
servicing of the retail unit(s) hereby approved.
6. Prior to the first occupation of any residential unit or retail unit hereby approved the re-positioning of
the layby adjacent to the development on the Quays Loop Road shall be completed and thereafter
retained.
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. No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the Report) has been
submitted to and approved in writing by 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 LPA prior to the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report
shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to
the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works
undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
9. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall include
full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be
carried out within 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.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
10. No dwelling or retail unit shall be occupied until the dockside walkway has been constructed and is
open for public use. Once constructed the dockside walkway shall remain open and accessible for all
members of the public to pass and re-pass at all times.
11. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing the disposal of foul drainage
and recycling of grey water has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and therefater retained prior to the first
occupation of the development.
12. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing recycling has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented and thereafter retained prior to the first occupation of the development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5.
So as not to interfere with the free flow of traffic along Quays Loop Road in accordance with Policy
Dev1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
6.
So as not to interfere with the free flow of traffic along Quays Loop Road in accordance with Policy
Dev1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
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. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
11. In order to prevent pollution of the adjacent watercourse in accordance with policy DEV1 and EN20 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
12. In order to provide recycling facilities in accordance with policy DEV1 and EN20 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
1. 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.
2. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under Section 278
of the Highways Act 1980.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities.
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment Agency.
5. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on the 14th June 2005, doc 23617/Rev S002.
APPLICATION No:
05/51465/FUL
APPLICANT:
OPH Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Land On Langworthy Road And Eccles New Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing building and erection of 2 three/four storey
buildings comprising a total of 30 apartments together with associated
landscaping, car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of a vacant single storey car repair garage at the junction of Eccles New
Road and Langworthy Road. The single storey building sits at the south of this rectangular site close to
Eccles New Road. There is a levels difference on the site with the southern part of the site approximately
2m lower than the northern part. To the east of the site are the three storey flats at Constance Gardens, to the
south across Eccles New Road are commercial units, to the west across Langworthy Road are two storey
houses of My Street and to the north is the railway and the M602 Motorway. There are several four storey
blocks of flats to the east of this site along Eccles New Road. The route of Metrolink passes through the
junction of Eccles New Road and Langworthy Road with a Metrolink stop close by on Eccles New Road.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of two blocks containing a total of 4 one bedroom flats and
26 two bedroom flats. The block at the southern part of the site fronts Eccles New Road and returns the
corner onto Langworthy Road whilst the other block fronts Langworthy Road. The site measures 0.234
hectares the proposed density being 128 units per hectare. Each block has a three and four storey element.
The southern L shape block is set a minimum 4m back from the back of pavement on Eccles New Road and
2m back from the pavement on Langworthy Road. The southern block is set on a similar building line to
most properties along Eccles New Road except for the adjacent Constance Gardens which are 20m back
from the back of pavement. The southern block is four storeys fronting Eccles New Road and four storeys
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
returning the corner for 11m along Langworthy Road from where it reduces to three storeys. At its closest
the southern block fronting Eccles New Road is 10m from the Constance Gardens block however this is at
an acute angle there are no proposed windows directly overlooking Constance Gardens. Where the southern
block returns along Langworthy Road the distance to the blank gable ends of Constance Gardens is 18m
and is 24.5m away from facing habitable windows of Constance Gardens. The southern block is 33m away
from the houses on My Street across Langworthy Road.
The northern block, rectangular in footprint, is 2m back from the back of footpath on Langworthy Road and
is 4m back from the railway embankment. The northern block is 18m from the gable end of Constance
Gardens and 25m from Habitable room windows of Constance Gardens. The northern block is 23m from
gable ends of My Street and 31m from habitable room windows along My Street.
Both blocks are designed with slightly sloping metal roofs and would be built out of predominantly brick
with some wood cladding. In total five pedestrian entrances are proposed along Eccles New Road and
Langworthy Road and the site is to be enclosed by low wall with railings to Eccles new Road and
Langworthy Road, 1.2m high brick wall with 2.8m high perspex screen to the railway embankment and
2.1m high timber fence to Constance Gardens. Some incidental on site amenity space is proposed.
Twenty four car parking spaces are proposed, 80% parking, including two disabled spaces with vehicular
access being taken from Langworthy Road. The proposed vehicular access, between the two blocks, is
proposed to be relocated along Langworthy Road from its current position requiring the existing bus stop to
be relocated. Cycle parking is proposed within the buildings under the five staircases.
The application has been submitted with a design statement, streetscene elevations, sunpath diagrams for
June and December and an acoustic report. The design statement, streetscenes and sunpath study seek to
justify the appearance and size of the proposed buildings. The acoustic report seeks to address noise issues
principally from the M602 and recommends a 4m barrier along the boundary with the railway and acoustic
treatment to windows in order to ensure residential amenity for future occupiers.
SITE HISTORY
In May 2005, planning permission was refused for the erection of a three/four storey block containing 33
apartments (05/50413/FUL). The two reasons for refusal were:
The proposed development by reason of its relationship to adjacent noise sources,
including the M602 motorway, railway, Metrolink, Langworthy Road and Eccles New
Road would not provide the future occupiers of the development with a satisfactory level
of amenity contrary to PPG24, policies DEV1 and EN20 of the Adopted UDP and DES7
and EN14 of the Revised Deposit Draft UDP.
Insufficient information has been submitted to enable the full implications of the height,
design and massing of the proposed development to be properly assessed, in addition to its
impact on existing residents, contrary to policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the Adopted UDP
and DES1, DES7 and DES13 of the Revised Deposit Draft UDP.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections. Ground condition and noise conditions recommended.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
United Utilities – no objections, suggested conditions which I have passed onto the applicant.
Environment Agency – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit –
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – No comment raised.
Highways Agency – No objections
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both press and site notices.
The following neighbours were notified:
12-20 inclusive and 22-32 even My Street
1-60 inclusive Constance Gardens
1-21 Wearhead Row, Eccles New Road
22 Spring Gardens
Brooklands & 3-5 Vere Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received nine letters of objections in response to the application publicity. The following matters
have been raised:
Disturbance from Construction Work
Noise from Construction work
Devaluation of property
Loss of Privacy
Loss of Light
Loss of view
Prefer development to be two storeys
Extra traffic on the road would lead to accidents and the area being dominated by cars
Noise from engines revving and doors slamming in the car park
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
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, EN20
Pollution Control, H1 Housing Supply, H6 & H11 Open Space Provision.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICIES
Site Specific: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, H1 Supply of Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Associated
with New Housing Development, DES2 Circulation and Movement, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and
Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and
Crime.
INSPECTORS REPORT
DES1 – Recommended minor changes to the policy.
H1 – Recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains largely the same.
H8 – Recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
DES2 – Recommended minor changes to the policy.
A10 – Recommended minor changes to this policy.
DES7 – Recommended no change to this policy.
DES11 – No modifications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the suitability of this land use at the site, the impact
of the buildings upon neighbouring residential amenity and the streetscene, the level of parking, design and
crime and provision of childrens play space and informal open space.
Principle of 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.
This site has been previously developed and use of the site as residential is in accordance with policy H1 of
the revised deposit draft UDP subject to the density being appropriate and there being no detrimental impact
upon residential amenity. I consider that the principle of adding high density residential units to this site
close to a Metrolink stop, bus routes and Langworthy Key Local Centre to be in accordance with policy H1.
Amenity
I have received objection to the development from occupiers of properties on My Street on the basis of loss
of light, loss of privacy, as well as a comment that the building should be limited to two storeys high.
Policies DEV1, DES7 and DES1 require that the proposed development respects the context of the site and
surroundings and does not unduly impinge upon local residential amenity. The minimum distance of 18m to
gable ends of properties on Constance Gardens is consistent with the Council’s standard separation
distances. I consider the 24.5 m distance to the habitable facing windows of flats on Constance Gardens to
be acceptable and the 33m distance to facing two storey houses on My Street to be acceptable with regards
to privacy and the Councils Standards. With regard to sunlight the submitted study shows an impact upon
My Street and Constance Gardens in December and no impact in June. Whilst there is an impact in
December I do not consider this to be significantly detrimental as the shadow cast is either in the morning
only for My Street and afternoon only for Constance Gardens. At 10:00 on 21st December the study shows
there would be an impact upon 32 and 19 My Street only. At 12:00 on 21st December there is no shading to
any property on My Street. I do not consider this impact to be significantly detrimental to warrant refusal of
planning permission especially as the separation distances are consistent with the Councils Standards.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Noise
I have received objection from properties on My Street to disturbance from cars in the car park revving their
engines. The proposed car park is on the far side of the proposed apartments in relation to the houses on My
Street. I do not consider that the siting of the car park, behind a three/four storey building and across
Langworthy Road, would lead to a significant detrimental impact upon houses on My Street. Policies
DEV1, EN20 of the adopted UDP and DES7 and EN14 of the emerging UDP seek to ensure residential
amenity of future occupiers. The submitted noise report recommends noise mitigation measures of a 4m
boundary screen along the boundary with the railway, 2.1m acoustic fence alongside Constance Gardens,
2.1m acoustic screen along Langworthy Road and acoustic windows, all of which were proposed within the
submitted application. The 2.2m screen is proposed to be a see through Perspex solution above 1.8m wall
thereby minimising visual impact which I consider to be appropriate. The Director of Environmental
Services considers the 2.1m boundary fence between the site and Constance Gardens and the 4m screen to
the boundary with the railway to be sufficient to ensure reasonable amenity with regard to noise for future
occupiers. I am satisfied that the previous reason for refusal has been addressed and the development
reasonably accords with policies DEV1, EN20, DES7 and EN14.
Design
Policies DEV2 and DES1 require developments to be to a good design that has its own identity and respects
local areas. As stated above I have received objection as the development is higher than two storeys. Along
Eccles New Road there are existing four storey apartment blocks and across Eccles new Road there are
three storey office blocks. I consider that the scale and mass of the proposed buildings are appropriate for
this site along busy routes within the City. The four storey element at the junction of Langworthy and
Eccles New Roads reinforces the corner. The articulation provided by contrasting materials and
fenestration pattern will result in a development that has a positive impact upon the site and the surrounding
area. The lowering of the boundary treatments to Langworthy and Eccles New Roads helps to bring natural
surveillance to the streets and improves the relationship with the streetscene. I consider that the buildings
and spaces around the buildings will add value and quality to the built environment in accordance with
policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1 and DES2.
Trees & Landscaping
The proposal does involve the loss of several self seeded trees within the site which are not in my opinion
worthy of protection. The submitted layout does show an indicative landscape plan however I recommend a
condition be attached to require a detailed plan showing the position, species and height/girth of trees to be
planted along with shrubs and hard landscaping. Two for one replacement trees on this site could impinge
upon residential amenity at Constance Gardens depending upon species and position of planting. I would
advise the developer to carefully consider the proposed species of tree to be planted when drawing up a
landscape scheme with particular regard to the amenity of residents of Constance Gardens.
Open Space
Policies H8, H6 and H11 require open space and children’s play space on site or a contribution for open
space provision off site. The applicant wishes to provide a financial contribution for open space and
children’s play space and local environmental improvements. For the number of bedspaces proposed the
Councils SPG on open space in new developments requires a total figure of £60,190 for equipped play
space and informal open space has been established. This commuted sum is in lieu of appropriate play space
and informal open space on site.
Car Parking
I have received objection to the development on the basis of extra traffic created and the area being
dominated by cars. Policy T13 requires developments to include appropriate and sufficient car parking.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Current government policy is to restrict the amount of parking provision on new developments, as part of
the strategy of minimising the use of the car and planning policy guidance note 13 establishes maximum
parking standards for a variety of uses. Policy A10 echoes this guidance and I consider this a relevant
material planning consideration. I consider that the 24 parking spaces including two disabled spaces, 80%
on site parking, is acceptable for such a residential scheme in this location close to public transport links
including buses and the Metrolink. I have added a condition requiring cycle facilities and motorcycle
facilities to be installed prior to the occupation of apartments.
OTHER ISSUES NOT COVERED ABOVE
I do not consider right to a view, devaluation of property and disturbance from construction work to be
material planning considerations. The hours of construction working are controlled under separate
legislation I have recommended an informative which provides construction hours.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Following the refusal of the previous application I have secured amendments to the scheme over several
pre-application meetings with the applicant. I consider the layout of the scheme has been improved through
pre-application discussions. The application has also been amended to ensure that future residents will have
a choice of entrances to the apartments from both within the undercroft parking areas and also directly from
the communal landscaped areas. The proposal includes a commuted sum payment of £60,190.
CONCLUSION
I have received objection to the development on the basis of loss of amenity, but as discussed above I
consider the proposal does not significantly impact upon residential amenity and is within the Councils
Separation Standards. I am satisfied that the development of the site would be in conformity with the
provisions of policies within both the adopted and draft replacement UDPs and that there would be no
detrimental effect on any neighbouring property as a result of this development. I am satisfied that the
development conforms to both local and national policy and that it makes a contribution to the continued
regeneration of this part of the City. I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to the
following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
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 and to secure the provision of
improved local open space/play equipment and off site local environmental improvements.
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans, no development shall be started until
samples of the facing materials to be used for the external walls, roofs, windows and balconies of the
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall include
full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be
carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained
to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of
planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
4. No development shall be started until full details of the design and construction of bicycle parking
facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such
approved bicycle parking facilities shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before the
first occupation of the building.
5. 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.
6. No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the Report) has been
submitted to and approved in writing by 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 LPA prior to the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report
shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to
the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works
undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
7. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
8. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a scheme for the approval of the
Local Planning Authority, to detail the appearance and manufacturers specifications of the acoustic
barriers for the site. Development shall not commence until written approval for the scheme has been
given by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first occupation of any residential property hereby
approved the acoustic barriers as approved shall be installed and shall thereafter be retained.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
9. Prior to first occupation of any residential unit within the block closest to the M602 hereby approved all
windows and external doors shall have a minimum sound insulation performance of Rw 40dB which
shall thereafter be maintained.
10. Prior to first occupation of any residential unit within the block closest to Eccles New Road hereby
approved all windows and external doors shall have a minimum sound insulation performance of Rw
36dB which shall thereafter be maintained.
11. Prior to first occupation of each of the residential units hereby approved each residential unit shall be
fitted with acoustically attenuated mechanical ventilation systems which shall allow for rapid
ventilation and summer cooling and shall thereafter be retained.
12. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing recycling of household waste
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme
shall be implemented and therefater retained prior to the first occupation of the development.
(Reasons)
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of
this permission
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. 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.
6. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
7. To provide for the safety and convenience for users of the highway in accordance with Policy DEV1 of
the City Of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
9. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
10. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
11. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
1. 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.
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's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities.
4. Construction and construction vehicle movements to and from and/or within the site (including routine
maintenance of vehicles and plant) should not take place on the site on Sundays or Bank/Public
Holidays; on Monday to Friday inclusive except between the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 or on Saturdays
except between the hours of 08.00 to 13.00.
APPLICATION No:
05/51365/OUT
APPLICANT:
C Rustage
LOCATION:
Riverside Agecroft Road Pendlebury Swinton M27 8SJ
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for development of land for residential
purposes and alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an industrial complex. The main industrial / warehousing units are vacant
although there is an amount of office provision still on site.
The application is in outline and seeks consent for the principle of the site to be used for residential purposes
and access only. The site is bounded by the River Irwell to the north, Slack Brook Country Park to the west,
the access road to HMP Forest Bank to the south and Agecroft Road to the east. Beyond the River Irwell is
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council. The Agecroft Road and River Irwell boundaries include a number of
mature trees.
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
The Thirlmere aqueduct is located within the highway to the front of the site. Where it crosses the River
Irwell the aqueduct is a grade II listed building.
No details other than means of access are sought at this stage although the applicant’s agent has provided
indicative layouts as to how a residential scheme could be brought forward. The indicative scheme includes
a mix of housing and apartments.
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – No objection in principle
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – Consider that the site is poorly served by public
transport and as such consider that should the application proceed to reserved matters, it should be ensure
that the pedestrian environment is designed to encourage pedestrian access. Also, that a section 106
contribution is sought from the applicant toward improvements to public transport infrastructure
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections in principle and recommends that the applicant enter
into early discussions prior to the submission of any reserved matters
United Utilities – No objection in principle
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council – No objections
Environment Agency – No objection
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – No objection in principle
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 16th September 2005
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on 22nd September 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 – 8 (even) Billington Road
HMP Forest Bank Prison, Forest Bank
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any objections in response to the application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, H1 Meeting Housing Need, H6 and H11 Open
Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, EN7 Conservation of Trees
and Woodlands, EN5 Nature Conservation, R5 Country Parks, R7 Strategic
Recreation Routes, R8 Access to the Countryside, R11 Provision of Country Parks,
EN20 Pollution Control, T13 Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
H1 Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision Within
New Housing Developments, ST3 Employment Land, ST11 Location of New
Development, EN7C Nature Conservation Sites of Local Importance, A1
Transport Assessments and Travel Plans, A8 Impact of Development on the
Highway Network, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Development, CH4 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building, E5
Development Within Established Employment Areas, EN14 Pollution Control, R1
Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities, R4 Key Recreational Areas, R5
Countryside Access Network.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of residential development on the site,
the loss of employment land and whether this would result in a material shortfall, the impact of the proposal
upon the neighbouring Slack Brook Country Park, the impact upon the highway network and whether the
proposal complies with the provisions of the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement UDP. These issues will be discussed in turn below.
Loss of Employment Land
Strategic Policy ST3 seeks to ensure the supply of a good range of local employment opportunities.
The Council’s commissioned Employment Land Study indicates that the city has a relatively constrained
supply of employment land/premises. The Council therefore holds a presumption against the loss of further
employment land and premises, largely through Policy EC3 of the Adopted Plan, and Policy E5 of the
Revised Deposit Draft UDP.
Adopted policy EC3 states that where existing industrial and non-retail commercial sites and / or premises
become vacant, the City Council will seek to re-use or redevelop them for similar or related uses.
Policy E5 of the Revised Draft Plan allows for a number of exceptions to this presumption against the loss
of employment land. In this instance I consider criteria ‘a’ and ‘b’ to be relevant.
Criteria ‘a’ states that “The developer can clearly demonstrate that there is no current or likely future
demand for the site or building for employment purposes”
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Criteria ‘b’ states that “There is a strong environmental case for rationalising land uses or creating open
space”
Accordance with criterion ‘a’ has been given increased importance by the conclusions of the Inspector of
the UDP Inquiry who stated that “I see no benefit in redeveloping employment land for housing or other
uses if a demand to retain it in employment use still exists, particularly when the plan makes adequate
provision for housing, mostly on previously–developed land” (Inspectors Report to the City of Salford UDP
Public Inquiry -paragraph 8.155).
To demonstrate compliance with the criteria, the applicant has supplied an employment land assessment
together with a letter from “Gerald Eve” (chartered surveyors and property consultants) indicating that the
premises were marketed from the summer of 2001 to the date of purchase by the current applicant (27 th
September 2004) and a further letter from the site owner describing his marketing attempts.
Moreover, the applicant has also provided additional information on the history of marketing for the site. I
have summarised the marketing efforts below:
The sending of mail-shots to all northwest (including Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Cheshire
and Lancashire) commercial property agents. Marketing particulars were redistributed to all
property agents on a six monthly basis. At no time was the site advertised as a residential
redevelopment opportunity.
Property details were posted on the Gerald Eve and Estates Gazette website.
The property was advertised in the commercial property section of the Manchester Evening News
in March 2002, on two separate subsequent occasions thereafter, and on one occasion in the Estates
Gazette.
Gerald Eve describe that they received very few enquiries from commercial operators and that
during the first eighteen months of the marketing period only three offers were forthcoming, all
well below the asking price, and all of which were subsequently withdrawn.
In addition, the current owner has confirmed that since purchasing the property, To Let boards have been
located on the main road outside the premises and the details were advertised in various trade magazines
and the Manchester Evening News on numerous occasions without success.
I consider that the marketing which has taken place over the last 3 years clearly demonstrates that there is no
demand for this site for employment purposes.
In terms of criterion ‘b’, I consider that the development of this site does provide an opportunity to develop
a more effective “green gateway” into Slack Brook Country Park, which could bring with it environmental
improvements. The applicant has agreed to contribute £54,411 towards the improvements to existing
access into the country park. Moreover, the applicant’s landscape strategy clearly identifies the existing
footpath as an opportunity which could be improved and enhanced to provide a significant gateway into the
Park.
Whilst I am mindful of the Inspectors comments, I consider that in this instance, the applicant has
sufficiently demonstrated compliance with the criteria policy EC3 of the Adopted Plan and E5 of the
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Revised Draft Plan, as such I do not consider that the loss of this employment site would result in a material
shortfall of employment land across the City.
The Principle of Residential Development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. With regards to the principle of the proposed
development, the site is located within an area of mixed uses.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be considered. PPG3
also states that, when considering conversions, a more flexible approach is required with regard to densities,
car parking, amenity space and overlooking.
“In identifying sites to be allocated for housing in local plans and UDPs, local planning authorities should
follow a search sequence, starting with the re-use of previously-developed land and buildings within
urban areas identified by the urban housing capacity study, then urban extensions, and finally new
development around nodes in good public transport corridors…” Paragraph 30 PPG3
“In deciding which sites to allocate for housing in local plans and UDPs, local planning authorities should
assess their potential and suitability for development against each of the following criteria:
the availability of previously-developed sites and empty or under-used buildings and their
suitability for housing use;
the location and accessibility of potential development sites to jobs, shops and services by modes
other than the car, and the potential for improving such accessibility;
the capacity of existing and potential infrastructure, including public transport, water and
sewerage, other utilities and social infrastructure (such as schools and hospitals) to absorb further
development and the cost of adding further infrastructure;
the ability to build communities to support new physical and social infrastructure and to provide
sufficient demand to sustain appropriate local services and facilities; and
the physical and environmental constraints on development of land, including, for example, the
level of contamination, stability and flood risk, taking into account that such risk may increase as
a result of climate change.” (Paragraph 31)
Paragraph 38 ‘Determining planning applications’ of PPG3 states “In considering planning applications for
housing development in the interim, before development plans can be reviewed, local authorities should
have regard to the policy contained in this PPG as material considerations which may supersede the policies
in their plan” (as above).
As the site is not allocated within either the draft or adopted Unitary Development Plan, it would represent
a windfall residential site given that the applicant has demonstrated that there is no demand for employment
uses. I consider that the principles identified within PPG3 and the advice contained within paragraph 38 of
PPG3 is relevant in considering the principle of bringing this site forward for residential purposes.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
The site is somewhat isolated in comparison to the surrounding existing residential areas and communities.
To the rear of the site are H M P Forest Bank and the Slack Brook Country Park. Opposite the site is
Agecroft Cemetery.
Moreover, the site is located within the Irwell valley with a significant change in levels on the opposite side
of the road within Bury. I consider that the topography and historical development of the surrounding area
provides little permeability. The River Irwell and railway to the north of the Westbury Homes site result in
significant barriers that separate this site from the closest surrounding residential areas. Given the policy
framework outlined below relating to the protection and enhancement of the Slack Brook Country Park, I
do not consider that country park is likely to be developed in the future. Furthermore, I also consider that
the neighbouring uses are unlikely to be developed for residential purposes and that it is reasonable to
conclude that this site would therefore continue to be isolated in the future.
The Westbury Homes site on Agecroft Road and residential scheme on Lumns Lane are historical decisions
granted on appeal in the late 1990’s. I consider that the policy framework has changed significantly in this
time and that these developments could not reasonably expect to formulate a sustainable community with
this current site given the barriers that dissect them and the distance between them.
The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive consider “the site to be very poorly served by
public transport with just an hourly Monday – Saturday local bus service serving the bus stops on Agecroft
Road.” The bus service on Langley Road operates on the same frequency as those along Agecroft Road.
The bus stops on Littleton Road offer a more frequent service but are located over 600m from the site. The
GMPTE consider that 400m is a distance that people using public transport would be prepared to walk. The
GMPTE believe that access to the site would be larger car borne as they will not have access to a convenient
alternative.
The Agecroft commerce Park is within walking distance of the site and could provide future residents
employment opportunities.
The site is not local within or adjacent to Town Centre or Neighbourhood Centre. The closest convenience
store is located on Littleton Road approximately 10 minutes walk from the site.
Therefore, whilst the site is identified as a brown field site within PPG3 and one which should be developed
in preference to undeveloped Greenfield sites, I consider that the isolated location of the site on a what is a
poorly served public transport link would result in an isolated residential development and one which
would integrate within existing neighbourhoods and would not result is a development in a sustainable
location.
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.
Draft Policy ST11 states that sites for development will be brought forward in a sequential order. Existing
buildings being most preferable (1A) followed by previously-developed land in locations that (1B):
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
1B(i) are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice of means of
transport; and
1B(ii) are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure
2
Previously-developed land in other locations, provided that adequate levels of accessibility and
infrastructure provision could be provided
3
Green field locations
The Inspector has recommended a number of modifications to this policy to ensure that “new development
is located on the most sustainable sites within the City and that less sustainable sites are only brought
forward where necessary”.
This site would fall within criteria 2 of revised policy ST11, i.e. a previously developed site that does not
relate to existing housing and one than is not well served by public transport. In assessing windfall sites, the
draft UDP and Inspectors Report point to supporting sites in category 1 (a) and (b) – this site is not within
category 1. Moreover, I consider that elsewhere within the City there is availability of sites that fall within
category 1.
It is clear from the advice provided by the GMPTE that the site is poorly served by public transport and not
therefore a sustainable location. Moreover, it is also clear from the policies highlighted above and the
comments made by the Inspector to the revised plan that there are alternative housing sites within the City
that are sequentially preferable to deliver the Councils housing provision. I do not consider that there are
sufficient exceptional reasons to justify the approval of this site for housing purposes.
I consider that this approach is consistent with Policy DP1 of the Regional Planning Guidance for the North
West (RPG13) which, as Regional Spatial Strategy, is part of the development plan. Therefore, I
recommend that the application be refused.
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.
Draft Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the maximum car
parking standards should not be exceeded.
Given that the application is in outline only I consider that the level of parking provision would be
considered at the detailed stage. The applicant has indicated that the provision is likely to be 100%.
The applicant’s agent has provided a Transport Assessment (TA) in accordance with policy A1 of the
revised plan. In summary the assessment states that “the proposed development would provide access by a
choice of travel modes, and as such would accord with local and national planning policy guidance.”
Whilst I have no specific highway objection to the scheme, the letter of the GMPTE does not conclude with
the findings of the submitted TA.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding access.
Moreover, any car parking provision would have to be assessed at the detailed stage. It is clear, however,
that the site is not well served by public transport.
Open Space
Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play within new
housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11 which sets out a sliding scale for such provision.
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open space
within housing developments.
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution towards the
provision and maintenance of open space either on site or within the vicinity. Given that the application is in
outline only a figure cannot be calculated at the stage.
Air Quality
The applicant has undertaken an air quality assessment in accordance with policy EN20 of the adopted plan
and policy EN14 of the revised replacement plan.
The Director of Environmental Services has assessed this report and is satisfied that the impacts of the
development on air quality are negligible and does not recommend any further restrictions on air quality
grounds.
Linkages to the Slack Brook Valley Country Park
Adopted policy R5 seeks to promote the development of Country Parks.
Adopted policy R7 seeks to maintain, improve or introduce a network of strategic recreation routes based
on linear features such as canals. Development which may affect such a route will not normally be
permitted unless provision is made to maintain the continuity of the route and its relation to any linear
feature.
Adopted policy R8 states that the City Council will improve and promote access to the countryside and
recreational area. The policy identifies a number of methods to promote this view.
Adopted policy R11 states that the City Council will develop a number of sites as Country Parks in
accordance with policy R5. Slack Brook Valley is one of the sites identified within the policy.
Adopted policy EN5 seeks to improve the environment for nature through the identification, protection and
promotion of an integrated network of wildlife habitats and designated sites. It advises that development
will not normally be permitted where it would significantly impair the continuity and functioning of a
wildlife corridor; result in a significant reduction of habitat of demonstrable value or significant harm to any
protected species known to be dependent on the use of the affected wildlife corridor.
Revised Policy R1 updates Policy R1 of the Adopted UDP.
Revised policy R4 states that planning permission will only be granted development within, adjoining or
directly affecting a Key Recreation Area (Slack Brook Country Park is identified as a Key Recreation
Area) where it would be consistent to a number of specified criteria. Those include protection and
enhancement of existing recreational, amenity areas and trees and where it would improve access.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Revised policy R5 states that planning permission will not be granted where is would obstruct or close any
part of the Countryside Access Network.
The Inspectors has recommended minor typing amendments to these policies.
The applicant has provided an ecological assessment and bat survey. I have not received any objection
from the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit.
Adjacent to the site is a public footpath which runs alongside the River Irwell. Whilst the proposal would
not affect this public footpath the applicant has agreed to contribute to the wider investment in the Slack
Brook Country Park. The improvements seek to improve access, signage and use of this recreational
resource. Moreover, the accompanying landscape strategy identifies part of the site adjacent to the existing
public footpath as a gateway entrance to the country park.
The Red Rose Forest are currently preparing a master plan for the development and enhancement of the
country park. I have liased with Red Rose Forest regarding costs to implement improvements to the land
adjacent to the site. A figure of £54,411 has been agreed with the developer and would fund footpath
improvements and access along the section of footpath adjacent to the northern boundary. The contribution
includes appropriate maintenance provision and an entrance feature. These works would require a separate
application and would have to consider the setting of the adjacent listed building.
Subject to the requirement of a Section 106 agreement and detailed matters I am satisfied that the
application would accord with the policies highlighted above.
Effect on Listed Buildings
Policy EN12 states that the Council will not normally permit any development that would be detrimental to
the setting of a Listed Building or the environmental quality of the surrounding area.
Policy CH4 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have an
unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.
The Inspector has not recommended any changes to this policy.
The Council’s listed building and conservation officer has not objection to the principle of the scheme and
suggests that any section 106 monies could be used to improve the landscaping and setting of the listed
building.
As stated earlier in this report any works to secure improvements to the riverside walkway would require a
separate planning and listed building application.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding the
effect on the listed building.
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.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Policy EN10 of the Revised Replacement Plan states that development that would result in the unacceptable
loss of trees will not be permitted.
The Inspector has recommended no changes to this policy.
No trees are proposed to be removed at this stage given that the application seeks only the principle of a
residential scheme and means of access, however, the applicant has submitted a full arboricultural
assessment. Urban Vision’s arboricultural consultant has assessed the trees and the submitted tree
assessment.
He has recommended that the trees along the Agecroft Road and River Irwell frontage are worthy of
protection. Moreover, I consider that these trees offer a significant contribution to the amenity of the area
and gateway into the City.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding trees.
Other Issues
The applicant has provided a flood risk assessment. I have no objections in principle to the proposal from
the Environment Agency
Further to the comments relating to Air Quality the Director of Environmental Services has recommended
conditions relating to site investigations.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I am of the opinion that this site is poorly served by public transport and remote from local
retail provision and would therefore result in future occupiers reliant upon private cars as they would not
have access to a convenient alternative. Therefore, I consider that this site is sequentially less preferably
than other housing sites within the City and that should this site be developed it would prevent other
sustainable sites within the City from being brought forward.
I do not consider therefore, that this site should be released for housing purposes in preference to existing
more sustainable locations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The site lies within a location that is not well served by a choice of means of transport and is not well
related to housing, services and infrastructure. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy
ST11 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan, as the applicant has not demonstrated that there
are insufficient sites higher up the sequential order that are or could realistically become available for
development.
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/51382/FUL
APPLICANT:
K Davids
LOCATION:
224 - 232 Chorley Road And 14 Sutherland Street Swinton M27 6BA
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of three blocks
comprising 40 apartments, three retail units (A1) with associated
undercroft and surface car parking, alteration to vehicular access and
landscaping.
(Block 1 comprises 25 apartments part three part four storey
Block 2 comprises 11 apartments part three part four storey
Block 3 comprises four apartments three storey)
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
There are two sites involved in this application. The first is larger and comprises of two storey properties
and one bungalow to the rear of the site. The existing uses are a mixture of residential, retail and storage.
The site is located on the corner of Lower Sutherland Street and Chorley Road. Block 1 and Block 3 would
be located on this site. The second site is located on the opposite corner of Lower Sutherland Street and
Chorley Road and is currently occupied by two storey properties comprising a mix of office, retail and
storage uses on the site. Block 2 would be located on this site.
The site is sloping with ground levels reducing from Chorley Road towards the rear of the site. Existing
residential properties on Lower Sutherland Street are at a lower level than the application site.
The proposal consists of three buildings comprising of 40 residential apartments, three retails units (A1)
and associated car parking. There would be forty three car parking spaces including three disabled spaces
and cycle bays. There would be nine one bedroom apartments and thirty one two bedroom apartments.
Block 1
Block 1 consists of a part three part four storey building along the Chorley Road frontage. The three storey
element is located close to the existing Police station rising to four storey close to and on the corner with
Lower Sutherland Street. The side elevation of Block 1 along Lower Sutherland Street is stepped from a
four storey building to a single storey building to reflect the steep slope of Lower Sutherland Street.
Block 2
Block 2 would be a three storey building along the Chorley Road frontage. To the rear of the site the
proposal would be a four storey building due to the steep slope of Lower Sutherland Street. The rear
elevation would consist of undercroft parking with the residential development on three floors above.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
Block 3
Block 3 is a three storey building located to the rear of Block 1 and surrounded by car parking and amenity
space. The ground floor element of this Block would provide nine car parking spaces with the first and
second floors supported by stilts.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No Objections
Greater Manchester Police – Object to the application and recommend a number of amendments the
majority of which have been addressed by the applicant
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections providing a number of conditions are
attached relating to noise and ground contamination.
United Utilities – No objections in principle
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by site and press notice.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
234 – 240 (evens) 261, 263, 273 –289 (odds), 289A, Sutherland House 303 and Greater Manchester
police Divisonal Headquarters Chorley Road
2A, 2 – 12 (evens) 18 – 24 (evens) and 5 – 13 (odds) Lower Sutherland Street
4 Wordsworth Road
1 Abbey Drive
6A Dixon Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection and one letter of comment in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:Parking
Mass and height of building
Access to play area
Relocating of existing business
Not been notified
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: none
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
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
S2 – Location of New Retail Development
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
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
S2B – Retail and Leisure Development Outside Town Centres and Salford Quays
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft policy H1 - recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains largely the same.
Draft policy DES1– recommended only relatively minor amendments
Draft policy DES11 - recommended no changes to this policy.
Draft policy A10 - recommended only relatively minor amendments
Draft policy ST11 – recommended a number of minor changes but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
Draft policy H8 – recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
Draft Policy S2B – recommended a number of changes and the deletion of some criteria
Draft Policy DES7 - recommended no changes to this policy.
Draft Policy DES13 – recommended no changes to policy.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the design of the proposed building is acceptable; whether there would
be a detrimental impact on residential amenity; whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; and
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Unitary Development Plans. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
Principle of Development
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 Inspector has recommended a number of amendments to this policy including the deletion of some of
the criteria but that a density of no less than 50 dwellings per hectare should be sought in areas adjacent to
town centres and along major transport nodes and public transport routes. The proposal would have a
density of 142 dwellings per hectare.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be considered.
The site has previously been developed and considered as a brownfield site. The site is adjacent to a town
centre and along a major transport nose. As such, I consider the principle of the redevelopment of this site
for residential accommodation and the density to be acceptable and accords with the thrust of the policies
highlighted above.
Adopted Policy S2 states that new retail development is to be located immediately adjacent to existing
shopping centres. Draft Policy S2B states that planning permission will only be granted for retail and
leisure development outside town centres where a need for the proposal can be demonstrated.
There are three existing retail units on the site comprising of 211.9m2. The proposal would include three
retail units comprising a total of 168.4 m2. The application is located adjacent to Swinton Shopping Centre
and the proposal would replace similar size retail floorspace. I would therefore consider the principle of
retail to be acceptable in accordance with the above policies.
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.
Policy DES13 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal takes account of
the need for good design. A written statement should be submitted which explains the design concepts and
how these are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual appearance, the relationship to the site
and its wider context and how the proposal meets the Council’s design objectives and policies.
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
The design of the buildings is of high quality and a design statement has been submitted with the application
that demonstrates how the development meets the design objectives and policies of the City Council. I am
of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact upon the visual amenity of the
area. The proposed materials would consist of red brick, glazing, rendering and metallic cladding. 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.
The street scene along Chorley Road has changed dramatically over the years with the building of a three
storey office block facing the proposed Block 2 and the more recent three storey police headquarters
adjacent to the proposed Block 1. I would consider the height of the proposed buildings to be acceptable
given the heights of the surrounding buildings.
The modern design of the proposal is of a high quality. The proposed development would be a positive
feature in the street scene replacing rows of terrace brick and rendered properties. The vehicular entrances
to the proposal would be from Lower Sutherland Street. Pedestrian entrances would be from both Chorley
Road and from the car parks located to the rear of the sites. The retail units along Chorley Road would give
active frontages.
On the above basis, I am of the opinion that the application accords with Adopted Policy DEV2 and Draft
Policy DES1.
Amenity of Users and Neighbours
Adopted Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard should be had in the determination of
planning applications. Of most relevance to this application are the location of the proposed development,
including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size and density of the proposed
development and the impact on neighbouring residents.
Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of
other developments will not normally be permitted.
Block 1
Block 1 would be a minimum distance of 15m from the properties on the opposite side of Chorley Road.
The majority of these properties are commercial with the exception of one residential bungalow (1 Abbey
Drive) which would be a minimum of 20.2m from the proposal. The proposal would be opposite half of the
side elevation of the existing bungalow on which are located habitable room windows. The retail element
of the proposal would face the existing bungalow with residential development on the first and second
floors. The proposal would be slightly less than the normal 24m minimum distance. However due to the
fact that it would be only slightly less than 24m and given the importance of street scene in this location on
a main road close to Swinton Shopping Centre and the high quality of design I would consider the proximity
to be acceptable in this instance.
With regards to the relationship of Block 1 to properties on Lower Sutherland Street. No.2 Lower
Sutherland Street, has no primary habitable room windows on the ground floor gable but has a bedroom
window on the first floor. As mentioned the side elevation of Block 1 is stepped to reflect the steep slope of
Lower Sutherland Street. The element closest to No.2 would be a single storey stepping up to two, three
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
then four storeys. The two-storey element of the proposal would be a minimum of 13m from the first floor
habitable room window. The three storey element would be a minimum of 16m from No.2. There are no
habitable room windows of the elevation facing of Block 1 facing No.2 Lower Sutherland Street.
Block 2
The proposal would be adjacent to No.234 Chorley Road which is a two storey residential property. No.234
has a single storey garage set to the front of the property and close to the boundary with the application site.
To the rear of the site is No.5 Lower Sutherland Street. No.5 Lower Sutherland Street has a kitchen /
dining room window on the side elevation facing the rear of the proposal. The proposal would be 17m from
this window. The proposed rear habitable room windows are angled away from the properties to ensure no
overlooking to the garden area of windows of No 5 lower Sutherland Street.
Block 3
Block three would be located to the rear of Block 1. The proposal would be a minimum of 11m from the
rear boundary’s of the properties on Lower Sutherland Street and a minimum of 18m from the rear
elevation of those properties. Directly facing habitable room windows would have a minimum separation
distance of 24m to 2 Lower Sutherland Street. The main elevations of the proposal would not directly face
either of these properties. The side elevation would include a small balcony on the first and second floors
that has been amended to ensure that future occupants could not directly look into the rear elevations of
properties along Lower Sutherland Street. A specific objection has been received from Nos 12 and 20. Due
to the proposal being North East of the properties I would not consider it to have an unacceptable impact on
direct sunlight.
Amenity space would be located to the south of Block 3 for the use and access of future occupiers only. The
area would be triangular in shape with an area measuring approximately 195m2 .
I would not consider the proposal to have a detrimental impact on the privacy or outlook of the occupiers of
neighbouring dwellings or the future occupants of the proposal in accordance with Adopted Policy DEV 1
and Draft Policy DES 7.
Car Parking
Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is provided to
meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards and that car parks are
designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements, surface materials, boundary
treatments and security measures.
Draft Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the maximum car
parking standards should not be exceeded.
There would be a total of 32 car parking spaces provided for Block 1 and Block 3, two of which would be
for disabled use. Block 2 would have eleven car park spaces available, one of which would be a disabled
space. There would be cycle storage to accommodate cycles on both sites. The site would be within 650m
of two train stations, located on Station Road and Moorside Road, Swinton.
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
In light of the Council’s maximum car parking standards and the need to encourage the use of more
sustainable modes of transport, the site’s relatively proximity to Moorside Road and Station Road train
stations and proximity to Chorley Road, which is a main road with various bus routes I would consider the
proposed level of parking to be acceptable and in accordance with Draft Policy A10. I therefore have no
objections to the application on highway grounds.
Open Space
Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play within new
housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11 which sets out a sliding scale for such provision.
Draft Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open space
within housing developments.
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant is aware that a contribution towards the provision and
maintenance of open space in the vicinity is required. In accordance with the recently adopted
Supplementary Planning Guidance, the total contribution in this regard would be £72, 277. I have attached
a condition requiring such a contribution. I am therefore satisfied that the application therefore accords with
Adopted policies H6 and H11 and Draft Policy H8.
Other Issues
I have received a letter of objection from an existing tenant, stating that it would be difficult for the
business to re-locate and they were not notified formally by the Local Planning Authority. The Planning
Authority has no obligation to notify occupants within the boundary of the application site. This is the
responsibility of the applicant.
Part of the development site is located within the ownership of the Greater Manchester Police. Greater
Manchester Police have indicated for security purposes they would only allow low level planting on their
land. The applicant is aware of this and is in direct contact with Greater Manchester Police.
The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer has objected to the application and raised a
number of concerns the majority of which have been addressed by the applicant. Issues still outstanding
include the omission of Block 3 due to lack of natural surveillance and setting back the side elevations of
both Blocks 1 and 2 along Lower Sutherland Street as criminal could come into contact with the building.
Neither Block 1 or Block 2 have accessible windows along Lower Sutherland Street at ground floor level
due to their height above pavement level. The proposal would be situated on a similar building line as the
existing. As there are no windows within reaching distance of passing pedestrians, I would therefore not
consider the setting back necessary. Objections have been received in relation to the lack of natural
surveillance to Block 3. Block 3 is located within the car park and close to the amenity space area. All
elevations except the rear elevation which overlooks the Police Station are surrounded by existing and
proposed residential properties. The comments have been passed on to the agent who has not omitted Block
3. For the reasons above I would consider the scheme acceptable.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The application was dealt with at pre-application by the Development Team. A number of amendments
were requested prior to submission and these have been incorporated into the proposed plans to ensure
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
adequate distances from surrounding properties. A number of amendments have been incorporated into the
scheme to meet the objections from the Greater Manchester Police-this includes additional railings along
the front boundary on Chorley Road and splaying the Lower Sutherland Street elevation on Block 1. In
accordance with policies H6 and H11 of the Adopted UDP, I have attached a condition requiring the
applicant to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the
payment of a total of £72 277. This would contribute to the provision of open space in the vicinity.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development to be acceptable, that the scheme
proposes an improved street scene 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 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:
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.
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for the
external elevations and roof of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials, unless agreed
otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. 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
4. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the car parking provision for each
site shall be laid out and completed in accordance with Drawing No.2.01 REV D prior to first
occupation of any of the respective residential units to Block 1, 2 and 3.
5. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall include
full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be
carried out within 12 Months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained
to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of
planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
6. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the cycle storage facilities for each
site shall be laid out and completed in accordance with Drawing No.2.01 REV D prior to first
occupation of any of the respective residential units to Block 1, 2 and 3.
7. 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
8. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report
for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of
ground contamination on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors
as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human
health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions
on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and
landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report
shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to
the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works
undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
9. Prior to commencement of the development; the developer shall undertake an assessment to determine
the external noise levels from the surrounding roads networks including Chorley Road, Sutherland
Street and the local police station that the proposed residential elements will be subjected to (day time
and night time). The developer shall detail what steps have to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from
the above. The assessment shall have due regard to the Department of the Environment Guidance PPG
24 - Planning and Noise, achieving BS8233: 1999 in all habitable rooms. The assessment and
mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
prior to commencement of the development. Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be
implemented prior to first occupation and thereafter retained.
10. The Class (A1) use hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 8am and 10pm
Monday to Sunday.
11. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the existing vehicular access points have
been closed to vehicles and the existing footway made good to adoptable standards.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
3. 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.
4. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. In order to ensure that provision is made within the site for the storage of bicycles, in accordance with
Draft Policy A10.
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
9. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
10. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
11. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the Environment
Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551).
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. Construction works should not be carried out outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works should not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from United Utilities.
5. Please note this permission relates to the following plans
Drawing No.
2.01
2.02
2.03
Revision
D
E
E
Received On
13th September 2005
9th November 2005
9th November 2005
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
2.04
2.05
2.06
D
-
9th November 2005
13th September 2005
13th September 2005
6. In relation to Condition 09 alternative means of ventilation may be necessary in order to achieve
adequate summer cooling and rapid ventilation for some aspects of the site without compromising the
proposed acoustic protection measures.
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/51668/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Education And Leisure Directorate
LOCATION:
Land North Of Primary School Phoebe Street Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of primary school with integrated childrens centre and family
centre with associated hard surface play areas, football pitch together
with associated landscaping, car parking and boundary fencing
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This is a full planning application.
The site is 2.2 hectares in size. Dwellings on the site have recently been demolished and the site is presently
grassed with several trees to the boundaries and one larger tree within the site. To the north is St Joseph’s
RC Primary School, to the south is Radclyffe Primary School and there is residential development to the
east and west. There are public rights of way that cross the site based on the former street pattern.
It is intended that the proposed school would replace the two existing primary Schools in Ordsall (Radclyfe
and St. Clements)
The proposed building will be 2 storey and designed to accommodate 315 pupils in a 1.5 form entry school
with a Children’s Centre catering for 82 children. There will also be community facilities which together
with the Children’s Centre will operate outside school hours.
There will be car parking for 50 staff vehicles and a further 10 for visitors and users of the community
facilities.
The location of the school building is constrained by physical features including a former railway cutting
and is sited on the easterly side of the site adjacent to Knowsley Avenue. The parking areas and playing
fields will be located to the west of the building. The existing access road (formerly Tamworth Avenue) into
the site will be modified and used to access the new development. The existing short lay-by which is
adjacent to the site of the proposed building will also be used as a drop off facility.
The building will be of traditional construction with external cavity walls in facing brickwork. The roof will
be of varied height and pitch giving an interesting appearance and will be finished in profile metal cladding.
The whole site will be bounded by a secure mesh fencing, 2.4 metres in height.
SITE HISTORY
00/41714/DEEM3 - Prior Notification for the demolition of dwellings. Approved 01.02.2001.
01/42330/DEEM3 - Landscaping of land. Approved 01.06.2001.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
04/49231/DEEM3 – Outline application for primary school – approved in December 2004
05/51227/DEEM3 – Reserved matters application for a primary school - withdrawn
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Comments from the Unit have been submitted to
the applicant who has confirmed the acceptance of the comments and has made specific arrangements to the
satisfaction of the Unit. The design brief requires that the scheme meet the Secure by Design standards.
Manchester and High Peak Area Footpaths Society – No objections subject to the retention of the pedestrian
link along the eastern boundary from St.Joseph’s Drive to Knowsley Avenue.
Greater Manchester Pedestrians association – No comments received
Ramblers Association – No objections.
Open Spaces Society – The existing footpath between Ryall Avenue South and Mayflower Avenue is well
used and the Society has requested that the route be retained however there are no objections to the
proposal.
Environment Agency – No Comments received. The applicant has confirmed that the scheme will be
constructed in compliance with previous comments from the Agency to the effect that the floor levels will
be a minimum of 300mm above ground levels.
United Utilities – No comments received but the information provided on the previous application will be
forwarded as a note on the decision notice.
Sport England – This consultation reflects the wider consideration of the existing school sites, which may
be redeveloped for other purposes. The development at Phoebe Street does not involve the loss of playing
fields and hence Sport England are not a statutory consultee. Nonetheless the views of Sport England do
have relevance to the overall package. Based on the previous comments and recent indications Sport
England has no objections. No objections to this application by Sport England.
In terms of the overall package they have commented that the creation of a new school represents an
opportunity to create a facility which will be of benefit to the wider community and consideration should be
given to ensure that the design of the new school does not preclude community use of the proposed playing
pitch, and can provide easy access to supporting toilet and changing facilities. It is considered that the
proposal is consistent with Planning Policy Objective 10 but it is recommended, that the following issues be
made subject of planning conditions:
1) The playing pitch should be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with Sport England
guidance note ‘Natural Turf for Sport’, details should be submitted and approved prior to the
commencement of the development.
2) the playing pitch should be made available prior to the occupation of the new school buildings.
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 10th November 2005
A site notice was displayed on 11th November 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 12,14, 15-3(o) Napier Green
1 – 28 Ryall Avenue
St Josephs RC Primary School, St Josephs Drive
St Josephs RC Presbytery, St Josephs Drive
18 – 34 Summerseat Close
Radclyffe Primary School, West Craven Street
7 – 9 Stern Avenue
12 – 16 (e) Mayflower Avenue
1 – 5 (o) Cutter Close
2-10 (e) Brigantine Close
1-16 Knowsley Green
1-21 Ledbrooke Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
UR2 – An Inclusive Social Infrastructure
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H8/2 – Housing Area Improvement and Renewal
Other policies: SC4 Improvement/Replacement of Schools
R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities
DEV1 Development Criteria
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies:
EHC0A Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges
DES1 Respecting Context
DES2 Circulation and Movement
A1 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
DEV5 Planning Conditions and Obligations
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
INSPECTOR’S RECOMMENDATION
Draft Policy DES1 – recommended only minor changes
Draft Policy DES2 – recommended only minor changes to allow in exceptional circumstances the loss of
pedestrian routes to enhance the overall design of the development
Draft Policy A1 – recommended no changes other than the Council’s own pre-inquiry changes
Draft Policy EHC0A – recommend only minor changes to proposed school playing fields and recreation
provision for either exclusive school use or dual (community) use
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issues include the policy context, transportation and highways and the details of the proposal.
Policy context:
The principle of the use of the land for a primary school, nursery and children’s centre has previously been
accepted by the granting of outline consent in 2004. As a full application it is, however, important to
reconsider the matters of principle.
RSS Policy UR2 states that local planning authorities should allow for the varied provision of facilities for
education and has regard to the impacts of proposed developments on the health of local communities.
The site is allocated under area policy H8/2 of the Adopted UDP. This policy designates the area for public
sector housing area improvement and renewal, which indicates that the council has identified this area as
suffering from various social, environmental and physical problems and will encourage improvement and
regeneration activity. Policy SC4 states that the City Council will endeavour to make good any deficiencies
in school facilities through the development of replacement facilities subject to availability of adequate
resources. The policy seeks to ensure that the supply of school buildings and support infrastructure is
sufficient to meet local needs and that the condition of school buildings is compatible with current
requirements.
The Ordsall Development Framework identifies the development of a school on this site as a key proposal.
In this Framework, the new school site forms part of a larger community campus, that includes the playing
field of the adjacent St Joseph’s RC primary school. Development of this site will potentially release the
other two school sites for non education related development in the future. The reuse/ redevelopment of
these buildings and the retention or relocation of the playing pitch provision would therefore be given
consideration at that stage.
In cases where existing recreation land is proposed to be developed Policy R1 explains planning permission
would not normally be granted unless an equivalent replacement site is provided. The applicant proposes to
provide the statutory minimum school playing field of 5000 square metres including a football pitch and 2
netball courts within the hard surfaced play areas. Initially, these facilities are for the school’s use only,
however, the Children’s Services Directorate intend to address community use of the facilities in due
course. As part of the consideration they will address the level of usage to ensure that the playing field
remains in a fit condition for use by their school. There are also all weather facilities for use by the
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
community at Ordsall Recreation Centre. A meeting has been held with Sport England who has indicated
that there would be no objections to the proposals.
Policy EHC0A states that planning permission will be granted for the provision of new schools and
colleges, and also for the improvement or replacement of schools and colleges on existing sites, provided
that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring uses; secure
an adequate standard of playing field and other recreation provision in an accessible and convenient
location; be accessible to the community it serves by a range of means of transport, particularly foot, cycle,
and public transport; incorporate adequate provision for disabled access; not give rise to unacceptable
levels of traffic congestion, or have an adverse impact on highway safety in terms of traffic generation,
parking or servicing; and make provision, wherever possible, for community use of the buildings and
grounds.
Transportation and highways:
Having regard to the scale of development and usage in relation to the existing road layout and capacity a
Traffic Impact Assessment is not considered necessary.
Policy A1 requires that a travel plan be submitted where appropriate to ensure access by other means than
the private car and Policy DEV5 allows this to be controlled through the imposition of conditions. The
applicant has indicated that it will not be until after September 2006 that staffing arrangements will be in
place to produce a travel plan. This is therefore to be a condition of planning permission.
The request from the Open Spaces Society has been carefully considered by the applicant who feels
strongly that in the interests of safety and security the existing east west foot path along the northern edge of
the site needs to be closed and incorporated within the site. This will be the subject of formal closure
procedures and if these fail it will be possible to adjust the fence line to preserve the path but it is requested
that planning permission be granted on the basis of its closure.
Access in available around the site is available via Mayflower Avenue, St Joseph Street, Ryall Avenue
South and Phoebe Street. Although this route is not as direct as the existing footpath through the site I am of
the opinion that there is still a safe, and easily navigatable pedestrian route within the area
The footpath along the eastern boundary will be retained.
Details of the proposed development:
The 2 storey design of the building and the materials proposed are consistent with existing development
adjoining the site. The proposed siting of the building, whilst being determined by the site conditions, is
considered not to have any adverse impact on neighbouring properties and there are adequate separation
distances to existing properties (the nearest property off Knowsley Green is a minimum of 24 metres from
the 2 storey element of the building).
The applicant has indicated that there is to be a full Disability Discrimination Act audit of the facilities to
ensure that the development is fully accessible in compliance with the Act and new Part M of the Building
Regulations. Whist appropriate details have not been provided at this stage I am satisfied that this will be
achieved and that it is appropriate to impose a condition requiring details to be submitted and approved.
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
It is proposed to provide external lighting on the site and a detailed scheme has been commissioned, details
of which are required to be approved by condition.
The design has actively involved Greater Manchester Police whose comments have been incorporated into
the scheme. The matter of safety and security will continue to be a high priority issue and the intention is to
achieve the Secure by Design accreditation.
A site investigation report has been submitted and is being assessed, however, as the assessment has not
been completed this matter has been included within the proposed conditions.
I have no objection to the details of the design subject to the approval of specific materials, which is a matter
to be included within the planning conditions.
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied that the redevelopment of this site for educational purposes is acceptable and, in consideration
of the overall package for redevelopment in the locality, is not contrary to policies R1 and EHC0A with
regard to sports provision. The development and the proposed details would make a positive contribution
to the area and would result in the redevelopment of a vacant site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit details, for the approval of
the Local Planning Authority, of the proposed level of provision and the design, construction and
maintenance of the sports provision at the school. Once approved, sports provision for the school shall
be implemented prior to the first occupation and use of the school buildings and shall thereafter be
maintained.
3. Prior to the first occupation of the school the developer shall submit a travel plan for the approval of the
Local Planning Authority. The travel plan shall address measures to reduce the reliance on the private
car to access the site, the methodology for which shall be agreed by the Local Planning Authority prior
to submission. Once approved such measures shall be implemented and shall thereafter be maintained.
4. Finished ground floor levels shall be a minimum of 300mm above adjacent ground level.
5. No development shall commence unless and until the necessary consents have been obtained for the
closure of the rights of way.
6. Prior to the commencement of the 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
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
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 the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to
the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works
undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
7. No development shall take place unless and until a scheme for protecting the school from noise from
the A5063 and A57 and the adjacent Phoebe Street has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority; all works which form part of the approved scheme shall be completed
before the school is occupied.
8. Externally mounted plant and equipment shall be insulated in accordance with a scheme submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby approved is first brought
into use. Such works shall be completed before first use and shall be retained at all times thereafter.
9. Prior to the commencement of the development an Access Audit demonstrating that the development is
fully accessible to people with disabilities shall be conducted and the details shall be submitted and
approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details as approved shall be fully implemented prior to
the first occupation of the buildings.
10. That before development commences a detailed scheme for the external lighting to the site shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
11. Prior to the commencement of the development samples of the proposed external materials shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2.
In order to ensure sufficient sports provision in accordance with policy R1 of the adopted City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan
3. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
4. To avoid flooding of the new school in accordance with policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8.
To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan
9. To ensure that the development meets the needs of people with disabilities
10. Standard Reason R040A Secured from crime
11. Amenity and character of the area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. 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.
2. A number of pubic sewers cross the site, minimum easements of 3 metres to each side will be required,
however distances may be greater depending on their depth. Suggested separate drainage system,
possible storage on surface water system to limit discharge to 7L/s/Ha, all to United Utilities approval.
Please contact United Utilities regarding sewer adoption and the Director of Development Services
(Engineering Design Section) regarding Section 38 road adoptions.
3. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the applicant /
developer is advised to contact the Director of Environmental Services on 737 0551.
4. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the noise condition, the applicant / developer is
advised to contact the Director of Environmental Services on 737 0551. Please note guidance such as
PPG24, WHO guidelines, BS4142 (1997).BS8233:1999,Department of education guidelines.
5. The level of insulation to be provided and / or noise permitted from externally mounted machinery shall
aim to be such that the rated level of noise emitted from the development is below the existing
background level by at least 5dB(A). You are advised to contact the Director of Environmental
Services on 737 0551 to discuss the measurement methodology and monitoring position.
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 1st December 2005
72