PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/50434/FUL
APPLICANT:
Peel Investments North Limited
LOCATION:
Land On The South West Side Of Michigan Avenue Salford
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing industrial unit and erection of two 21
storey and two 29 storey towers providing 600 residential units
together with retail, leisure and creche development on ground
floor with part underground and part integral car parking on
ground to first floor, alterations to existing vehicular access and
alterations to public realm.
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This site comprises land at the southern end of Michigan Avenue adjacent to the Harbour City
Metrolink Stop. The site is split into two and is divided by the roundabout at the southern end of
Michigan Avenue. At present on the eastern half of the site, between the roundabout and the
existing seven floor multi-storey car park, is a single storey industrial unit which is occupied. On
the western half of the site, between the roundabout and the Metrolink line, the site is vacant and
enclosed with a security fence. The harbour city tram stop is located immediately adjacent to the
eastern half of the site. To the north of the site lie low rise industrial units whilst to the south across
the Quays Loop Road and Metrolink line are the three NV Buildings at 17 storeys each. Also
across the Quays Loop Road are the Conran Buildings which are under construction and which
have a 22 storey tower, and the Victoria & Alexandra Office buildings. Also along the Quays Loop
Road is the Millennium development which has permission for a 22 storey tower.
Planning permission is sought for four towers containing 600 one, two and three bedroom
residential units, 1,309sq.m. retail use and 1574 sq.m of crčche and gym use. Twenty-four three
bed flats are proposed, 492 two bed flats are proposed and 84 one bed flats are proposed. Two
towers would be sited on each half of the site. To the eastern side there would be one 21 storey
tower and one 29 storey tower, the western part of the site would also house a 21 storey tower and
a 29 storey tower. The 29 storey towers are proposed to be sited adjacent to Michigan Avenue
toward the centre of the site with the 21 storey towers flanking the taller towers. The towers have
angular forms and are each finished with a sloped south facing roof which would include a
photovoltaic system to capture energy from the sun for lighting communal areas within the
building.
The towers are proposed to be built on podiums which would contain the retail and leisure space to
the south, west and east frontages. The retail and leisure uses would have full height glazing. Six
hundred and twenty-nine car parking spaces are proposed on two underground levels and across
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
two levels on the northern part of the podiums. Vehicular access is proposed off the roundabout at
the southern end of Michigan Avenue. A recessed floor above the podium level would provide
some shared amenity space for residents. The proposal also includes level access to the eastbound
Metrolink platform and architectural canopy, with photovoltaic roof system, to provide shelter at
the tram stop. Public realm works also include seating areas, a water wall and a sculpture.
The applicant has submitted a planning and design statement which explains the architects
justification for the form and mass of the proposed building and considers views between the
buildings and connectivity in the area. The planning policy framework is also considered as is the
future redevelopment of the area. The applicant has also submitted a wind study which analyses
the existing wind conditions at the site and the impact of the proposed buildings upon the wind
conditions at ground level. The wind study concludes that mitigation measures of soft landscaping
should be included at ground level to disperse wind.
The applicant has also submitted a Transport Assessment which addresses capacity issues on
several local roads, public transport provision, cycle access and access for people with impaired
mobility and considers the planning framework with respect to transportation. The transport
assessment includes existing developments in its analysis and also permitted but as yet
unimplemented developments in the area. Also included are the applicants proposed future
redevelopment plans for the remainder of the Dock 9 site. The transport assessment explains the
development would not itself require the construction of the Broadway Link to ease pressure on
the local traffic network. The transport assessment concludes that the proposed development
would not have any significant impacts upon the local highway network and the development
would promote sustainable transport choices.
SITE HISTORY
Wider Dock 9 Site (including the western part of this site)
In 2000, Outline permission was granted for a mixed use development including 600 residential
units, 90,473sq.m. of office space, 2415sq.m. retail space and 3716sq.m. of leisure space and a 300
bedroom hotel (97/36749/OUT).
In 2003, outline planning permission was renewed for a mixed use development including 600
residential units, 90,473sq.m. of office space, 2415sq.m. retail space and 3716sq.m. of leisure
space and a 300 bedroom hotel (03/46042/OUT).
The Application Site
No previous planning history other than the two outline applications listed above.
CONSULTATIONS
Manchester Airport – No objection subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the use of
lighting on cranes during construction.
Civil Aviation Authority – Advises the Council to be sure the development accords with
Government guidance on proximity to Aerodromes.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No known features of archaeological interest.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Director of Environmental Services – The site is on the edge of the former dockland area and is
currently under industrial use. It is highly likely that there will be some contamination to the
ground in the area with a possibility for gas migration affecting the ground floor levels. A full site
investigation report will be required to determine the risk and any necessary ground contamination
or gas which could affect the amenity of future residents. The site is also adjacent to one of two
major access routes to the Lowry centre and associated facilities as well as several other large scale
mixed use sites. It is likely that noise from these uses will have an impact on the future residents on
site. The site is also surrounded on two sides by the Eccles-Manchester Metrolink service. The
third side is also abutting industrial sites. Noise is likely to have a significant impact on this
application and as such a condition will be required to assess and propose mitigation measures
commensurate with the end uses. Noise from the site may also be an issue for other surrounding
residential uses from the retail uses proposed on the ground floor.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – Explain that public transport links are good
and that high density development such as this is supported by GMPTE. Recommend a free one
year travel pass for each residential unit, a buyers pack to include information on public transport
and a personalised journey planner.
Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions relating to surface water drainage and
a contaminated land condition.
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.
Highways Agency – Provide comments on the Transport Assessment which relates to the
applicants proposals for the wider area. State that this proposed development would not have a
material impact on the safety and operation of the Trunk Road network.
Grain Wharf Residents Association – No comments received
Grain Wharf Management Company – No objections received
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – No comments received
Peter Hunter – Had concerns over the submitted scheme with regard to integration to the Metrolink
platform and lack of information on the elevations of the towers. Following the submission of
amended plans Peter Hunter has advised the scheme has addressed his previous concerns and that
the scheme is acceptable.
GM Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments received
Central Salford URC – No comments received
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by way of site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
60 – 97 Vancouver Quay
30 – 58 Winnipeg Quay
15 – 173 Labrador Quay
1 – 164 NV Buildings
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
43-68 St Lawrence Quay
City Lofts, Harrogate
Alexandra Building
Victoria Building
Capstan House, Broadway
Chandlers Point 33-37 Broadway
Air Products Ltd, Broadway
JDS Trucks, Broadway
Spinnaker Court, Chandlers Point, Broadway
Abbey Life Insurance, Broadway
Lowry House, 5 Ohio Avenue
1 - 4 Ohio Avenue
Units 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 Michigan Avenue
Batleys Plc, Ohio Avenue
1 - 5 Central Park, Ohio Avenue
Avis Fleet Services, Ohio Avenue
Hedgehog House, Ohio Avenue
Unisafe House, Ohio Avenue
Units 2 – 7 Washington Centre, 102 – 112 Broadway
114 – 116, 122, 124, 200, 210 Broadway
Freshbake Foods, 101 Broadway
1a, 1 - 4 Anchorage Quay
Bupa Offices, Anchorage Quay
Newscentre, Anchorage Quay
Wright Health Group, Anchorage Quay
Barclays Bank, Anchorage Quay
Youth Centre, Anchorage Quay
Food Mountain, Anchorage Quay
Ventor Factors Plc, Anchorage Quay
FM Insurance, Anchorage Quay
Trillium, Anchorage Quay
Allianz Cornhill, Anchorage Quay
Amec, Anchorage Quay
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter, in support of the application, in response to the application publicity.
The letter has been received from a resident of the NV buildings. The following issue was raised:
The proposal would be an excellent continuation of the redevelopment of the Quays.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 Quality in New Development
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:DEV 1 - Development Criteria, DEV2 - Good Design, H1 Housing, H6 and H11
Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, EN20 Pollution Control, EC3 Re-use
of Sites
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/3 Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies: ST11 – Location of New Development, E5 – Development Within Established
Employment Areas, DES1 – Respecting Context, DES5 – Tall Buildings, DES3 Design of Public
Space, DES4 Relationship to Public Space, DES5 Tall Buildings, DES7 Amenity of Users and
Neighbours, H1 Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, S2B
Retail and Leisure Development Outside Town and Neighbourhood Centres, A10 Provision of
Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, A1 Transport Assessments and Travel
Plans, A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled, EN17a Resource Conservation, EN14 Pollution
Control.
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
ST11 – Explains sites for development will be brought forward in the following order; re-use and
conversion of existing buildings, then previously developed land and deleting greenfield sites from
the policy. The reasoned justification is to be modified.
E5 – Modification to the reasoned justification to give a fuller explanation of the areas to which the
policy should apply.
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
requiring the Council to set 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
S2B – Modifications proposed and some criteria deleted
EN17a – No modifications proposed
EN14 – Policy revised general thrust remains the same
H8 – Modifications proposed general thrust remains the same
A10 – Modify by adding a paragraph stating car parking developments will be assessed on a case
by case basis and that provision of more than 1.5 spaces per dwelling is unlikely to be regarded as
being sustainable
A1 – Modifications proposed
A2 – No modifications proposed
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of residential, retail and
leisure development on this part existing employment site and the scale, mass and design of the
development. Also of importance is the proximity and interaction with public realm, transport and
highway issues, parking and also the open space requirement.
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 MX1/3
allocates the site as part of the Salford Quays mixed use area with a broad range of uses proposed
including housing, leisure, education, retail and food and drink uses. The policy states that in
determining the appropriate mix of uses on individual sites regard will be had to six criteria i)
positive impact on regeneration of the wider area; ii) use of adjoining sites and the impact of the
proposal on maintaining a mix and balance of uses throughout the mixed use area; iii) contribution
toward activity throughout the day; iv) prominence of the location in relation to key pedestrian and
other transport routes; v) the size of the site; and vi) existing and previous uses on the site. MX1
also explains where developments have high design quality or have high levels of sustainable
design this may be consideration to outweigh the requirements for a mix of uses. Policy H1
requires new development to contribute to a mix of dwelling types and be of an appropriate
density.
E5 relates to the reuse or redevelopment of sites within employment areas for non employment
uses and states permission will only be granted where the operating conditions of nearby firms
would not be compromised and if one of four criteria apply a) the developer can demonstrate no
current or future demand for the site; b) if there is a strong environmental case for rationalising
land use or creating open space; c) the development would contribute to the implementation of an
approved regeneration strategy or plan for the area; or d) the site is allocated for another use within
the UDP.
Policy S2B relates to retail and leisure use outside town and neighbourhood centres. The policy
runs through criteria which must be met for retail development to be acceptable. The criteria
includes the requirement for a quantitative need, that there are no more appropriate sites, there
would be no unacceptable impact upon vitality and viability of any town or neighbourhood centre,
the site is accessible, the development would not give rise to unacceptable traffic levels, the
development is of a scale appropriate to the location, the development would to high standard of
design and would not have a negative impact upon environmental quality. The reasoned
justification for the policy explains that additional retail and leisure development will be required
within Salford Quays in order to meet the needs of the growing residential and business
communities and increasing numbers of visitors to the area.
Policy DES5 states tall buildings will be permitted where eleven criteria are met which include i)
scale appropriate to context and location; ii) location highly accessible; iii) building positively
relate to and interact with adjacent public realm; iv) high quality building; v) building produce a
positive impact upon skyline and not detract from important views; vi) no unacceptable
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
overshadowing resulting from development; vii) no unacceptable impact upon listed buildings or
conservation areas; viii) no unacceptable impact on microclimate; iX) no unacceptable impact
upon telecommunications; x) no unacceptable impact on aviation safety and Xi) no unacceptable
impact upon other policies of the UDP.
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.
Principle of Development
Policy ST11 requires a sequential approach to new development where the re-use of existing
buildings are to be considered first with brownfield land in locations well served by a choice of
public transport and are well related to housing employment, services and infrastructure. I am
satisfied that this brownfield site adjacent to Metrolink, bus routes and other services is in
conformity with policy ST11.
The principle of residential, retail and leisure development has been established through the
outline consent for the wider Dock 9 site and the recent reserved matters application on the western
part of this site. The eastern part of the site was not included within the outline application and an
existing employment unit is located on the site. Both parts of this application site are allocated for
a mix of uses within policy MX1/3, the appropriate uses include the proposed uses of residential,
retail and leisure. With regard to the six criteria of policy MX1/3 I consider that the proposed uses
and scale and design of development will have a positive impact upon regeneration of the wider
area. The proposed buildings are consistent with the scale and nature of recently completed and
approved developments within Salford Quays. This proposal is only on a small part of the outline
approval for Dock 9 and would not impinge upon the implementation of that permission. I am
satisfied the proposal would not impinge upon mixed use development throughout the rest of the
mixed use area. The uses proposed would increase pedestrian activity throughout the day and
would improve public transport facilities through a new canopy on the Metrolink platform and the
pedestrian environment. I consider the retail, creche and gym uses would help to meet the needs of
the growing residential population, business community and visitors at Salford Quays. The
applicant proposes a mix of dwelling sizes and I consider the intended density to be appropriate at
this accessible location.
Policy E5 of the deposit draft UDP relates to development within established employment areas.
The policy states that ‘planning permission will only be granted for the reuse or redevelopment of
sites within an established employment area for non-employment uses where development would
not compromise the operating conditions of other remaining employment uses’ and if one of four
criteria apply. One of the four criteria is whether the site is allocated for another use within the
UDP. The reasoned justification for policy E5 explains ‘where sites and buildings remain occupied
proposals for redevelopment to non-employment uses will be resisted, except where this is
required by the UDP or as part of an approved regeneration strategy/plan. Whilst the Director of
Environmental Services has no objections to the proposed mix of uses on the site he does
recommend a noise assessment is undertaken to ensure the impacts of noise from surrounding
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
uses, including Metrolink and employment uses to the north of the site, are mitigated to protect
future residents. I consider it essential that appropriate acoustic mitigation is installed to the
development to ensure an appropriate level of residential amenity for future residents in
accordance with policies DES7, EN20 and EN14. Acoustic mitigation should also ensure that the
operating conditions of firms to the north of the site are not compromised by the proposed
residential units. Although there is no current area based strategy for redevelopment at Salford
Quays the mixed use allocation for the site sets out appropriate land uses which this proposed
development conforms to. Whilst the proposed development would result in the loss of an existing
employment use the proposed development provides an increased amount of commercial
floorspace. As the site is allocated for a mix of uses within policy MX1/3 I am satisfied the
proposal conforms with policy E5 subject to noise conditions.
With regard to the proposed retail and gym use policy S2B applies. The retail units are proposed to
be divided into six small units and would front onto the proposed public realm adjacent to the
Metrolink stop. The applicant has stated that there is a need for the retail, creche and gym for future
occupiers of the development, other nearby residential units and employees of the area. I consider
the proposed subdivision of the retail, gym and creche into separate units would, along with the
increasing population at the Quays, perform a local need. Subject to a condition to ensure the retail
units are not amalgamated into larger units I am satisfied that the proposed retail uses will perform
a local needs function which would not harm the vitality and viability of other centres.
I am satisfied there would still be a genuine mix of uses within Salford Quays and that a
domination of one particular land use would not result if this application is granted. I consider the
proposed residential and retail uses would be in accordance with mixed use policy for the area,
employment and retail policies and that the proposal would contribute to the regeneration of the
mixed use area.
Scale, Mass, Design & Public Realm
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. Policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1 and DES2 further relate
to the design of buildings and the requirement for development to respect its context and
accessibility. The applicant has set out within his design statement the context of this site in
relation to ongoing regeneration at Salford Quays. There are a number of tall buildings that have
been completed close to the site, including the NV buildings. There are also sites close by that have
the benefit of planning permission for taller buildings. I consider the size and scale of the four
proposed towers to be complimentary to the scale of redevelopment at this part of Salford Quays.
The towers have been positioned to allow a north-south view along an axis in line with the Detroit
Bridge. I am also satisfied with the design, roofline and silhouette of the proposed towers which
will be appropriate when viewed from all directions including long views from Langworthy Road.
The proposed towers are to the north of other residential development at Salford Quays. I do not
consider that there would be an impact on any surrounding residential amenity through loss of light
as a result of this proposal. I also consider the separation distance of 21m between the proposed
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
towers to be acceptable at this location. I have proposed a condition in relation to safeguarding TV
reception in the area. I am satisfied that the proposal is in conformity with policies DES5 and
DES7.
At ground level the proposed podiums present active frontages to newly created public realm. The
retail, leisure and crčche uses and entrances to the flats would front the line of Metrolink and
would significantly improve natural surveillance and pedestrian activity in the area. The proposed
footpaths around the podiums, seating areas and public art would further improve the usability of
the development. The proposed canopy, seating area and information system at the Harbour City
Metrolink stop, which would be at grade with the eastern podium, would be a significant
improvement to public transport provision and would encourage the use of Metrolink by residents,
workers and visitors to the Quays. Proposed footpaths around the development connect to the
existing pedestrian network and will improve pedestrian connectivity from the north through this
site toward The Lowry and the Detroit Bridge. To the north facing elevations at ground level the
proposal includes some active uses from the leisure use and crčche which would be appropriate in
the event land to the north is redeveloped in the future. The inclusion of landscaping within the
public realm will not only enhance the appearance the development but would help to mitigate the
existing and resultant impacts of wind. I consider the scale and appearance of the proposal to be in
accordance with the design related policies and is of an appearance that would impact favourably
upon the regeneration of Salford Quays.
Highway Issues, Parking and Access
The submitted transport assessment concludes this development would not have a significant
impact on the trunk road network or local roads and junctions. I have no objection to the proposed
vehicular access from the roundabout at Michigan Avenue. I have forwarded the consultation
response of GMPTE to the applicant. The applicant has advised because he is providing 100%
parking and making improvements to the Metrolink stop he considers the need to provide a free
one year travel pass for each residential unit to be unnecessary. The applicant is willing to provide
an information pack, on public transport, for future occupiers. I have no objections to the level of
traffic created and am satisfied with the conclusions of the submitted transport assessment. I
consider that the 600 parking spaces for the 600 apartments (100%) and 29 spaces for the
commercial development to be appropriate at this accessible location, with Metrolink running past
the site, and is in accordance with maximum parking standards of the revised UDP. The
development includes 32 disabled spaces (5% of total), cycle and motorcycle parking and would
improve the functioning of the existing Metrolink stop. Much of the parking is situated
underground which I consider to be positive given the need to conserve and introduce efficient
land use. I recommend a condition to ensure that servicing and the recycling of waste from the
retail, residential, crčche and leisure uses are controlled.
Open Space Requirement
Each apartment has a small amount of useable space on balconies and an area of incidental open
space is proposed above the podiums. The proposed 600 units on this site are subject to the
requirements of policies H6, H11 and H8 and also SPG7. The development includes 1,740
bedspaces. The applicant proposes to provide a commuted sum in lieu of the additional open space
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
on site. The commuted sum is £416,348 and would go toward children's play-space, informal
open-space and/or local environmental improvements.
Resource Conservation
The developer proposes photovoltaic roof systems which would contribute to the energy needs of
the building. I have attached conditions to require schemes for grey water recycling and recycling
of waste. I consider the applicant has made reasonable endeavours to maximise resource
conservation in accordance with policy EN17a.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
I have secured the following amendments/improvements to the scheme:
Public realm improvements including the canopy for the Metrolink platform;
Photovoltaic roof system, to the towers and Metrolink canopy, to capture energy from the
sun;
Introduction of active uses to ground floor areas;
Moving car parking underground from initially submitted proposal which had five floors
of car parking above ground level on the north elevation;
Section 106 Obligation has been negotiated for open space, children’s play space and local
environmental improvements.
CONCLUSION
I consider the proposed mix of uses to be acceptable within this mixed use area. 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 impact upon the local highway network and
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 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and S278 of the
Highways Act to secure the provision of improved local open space/play equipment, local
environmental improvements.
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.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
3. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 629 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 future times the premises are in use.
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 thereafter retained prior to the first occupation of the development.
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 first occupation of the development
to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years
of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
6. 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.
7. 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.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
8. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing servicing and
delivery times and methods for the functioning of the retail, gym and creche units 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.
9. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing the form and
appearance of all public realm works has been submitted for the approval of the Local Planning
Authority. No development shall commence until such scheme has been approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling, retail, crèche or leisure unit shall be occupied
unless and until all public realm works as approved under the above scheme have been
constructed and are open for public use. Once constructed the public realm works shall remain
open and accessible for all members of the public.
10. 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 thereafter retained
prior to the first occupation of the development.
11. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing recycling of waste
from the development 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 commercial and residential units hereby approved.
12. Prior to the commencment of development the developer shall submit a scheme for the written
approval of the Local Planning Authority to detail the incorporation of photovoltaic system to
the roofs of the developments hereby approved. Such photovoltaic system shall be used to
provide energy for the development hereby approved. Prior to the occupation of any retail,
lesiure, creche or residential unit the approved scheme shall be installed and shall therefater be
retained.
13. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a report, which shall be
undertaken by a body approved by the Independent Television Commission, detailing the
existing level and quality of TV reception of properties at Salford Quays. Prior to first
occupation of the development the developer shall submit, for the approval of the Local
Planning Authority, a scheme that will detail measures to remedy any identified television
signal reception problems which have been caused as a result of the development hereby
approved. The scheme, which shall be verified by a body approved by the Independent
Television Commission, shall identify such measures necessary to maintain at least the
pre-existing level and quality of signal reception. The approved scheme shall be implemented
prior to first occupation of any residential property.
14. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme, detailing the provision of
lighting on cranes during the construction of the development hereby approved, has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved such
scheme shall be implemented for the duration of the use of cranes on the site.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
15. The maximum gross floor areas for each of the six retail units within the development
including any internal alterations shall not exceed 250sq.m.
16. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, the applicant shall submit for
written approval an assessment of noise likely to affect the development. This assessment
should follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding tram and
road network, and any other neighbouring industrial and commercial uses. The assessment
shall identify all noise attenuation measures which may be determined appropriate to reduce
the impact of noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the requirements of
BS8233 for internal noise levels. Consideration shall also be given to achieving adequate rapid
ventilation and summer cooling. If deemed necessary, alternative ventilation measures shall be
identified and incorporated into the noise assessment report. Once agreed, all identified noise
control measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any residntial unit and
thereafter retained.
17. An assessment shall be submitted for written approval to the Local Planning Authority which
details the levels of noise likely to be generated from the proposed commercial uses of the site
(retail, creche and gym uses and traffic generation for the site). This assessment shall be used
to identify and determine appropriate noise mitigation measures (such as soundproofing) and
shall propose reasonable opening hours which are required to protect the amenity of adjoining
and adjacent noise sensitive properties. Any noise mitigation measures identified by the
assessment shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the proposed use and retained
thereafter.
18. Details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking or/and food preparation areas shall
be designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to local premises and shall be
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development taking place.
The approved system shall be installed and shall be used at all times when the premises are
used for cooking or preparing foods. The system shall be maintained and serviced in
accordance with manufacturers recommendations
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
6. 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.
7. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
8. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
10. In order to prevent pollution of the adjacent watercourse in accordance with policy DEV1 and
EN20 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. In order to provide recycling facilities 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 and EN17a of the Salford City Council Deposit Draft
UDP.
13. To provide a remedy to the identified loss of TV reception as a result of the development hereby
approved and to ensure that the development at least maintains the existing level and quality of
television signal reception as advised in PPG 8: Telecommunications and policies DEV1 of the
Adopted UDP and DES7 of the Deposit Draft UDP.
14. Reason: To provide for the safety in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
15. To prevent the amalgamation of retail units in accordance with policy S2B of the Revised
Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
16. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
17. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
18. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
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.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
4. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on the 6th October 2005, plan
numbers 6974/01_02/A, 6974/01_18/A, 6974/01_17/A, 6974/01_16/A, 6974/01_09/A,
6974/01_22/A, 6974/01_01/A, 6974/01_03/A, 6974/01_04/A, 6974/01_05/A, 6974/01_10/A,
6974/01_11/A, 6974/01_12/A, 6974/01_19/A, 6974/01_20/A, 6974/01_21/A, 6974/01_28,
6974/01_29, 6974/01-12 third and fourth floors,
6974/01-14 typical upper floors
(same for all towers) (originally submitted as 01-12), 6974/01-34 22nd & 16th floors (higher
and lower towers),
6974/01-35 23/24th & 17/18th floors (higher and lower towers),
6974/01-36 25th & 19th floors (higher and lower towers), 6974/01-37 26th & 20th floors
(higher and lower towers), 6974/01-38 27th & 21st floors (higher and lower towers).
5. The developer should refer to legislation controlling the use of cranes is set out in the Air
Navigation Order and Cranes and Planes 168 and British Standard Institute Code of Practice
for the safe use of cranes, BS 7121:Part 1, paragraph 9.3.3. (Crane Control in the Vicinity of
Aerodromes) and the Directorate of Airspace Policy at the CAA. The approved scheme shall
be implemented and thereafter retained during the construction period.
6. The Environmental Services Directorate can be contacted on 0161 737 0551 for further
discussions concerning the assessment of noise and subsequent mitigation measures at this
site.
7. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
8. The developer should be made aware of the sensitivity of local residents to potential noise from
construction works in this area generally. Best practice towards reducing noise emitted from
the site during construction shall be employed at all times. Any unusually loud events or
phases of construction should be notified to local residents and Environmental Protection
(0161 737 0551) with at least 72 hours notice prior to the event occurring.
9. The lighting provided in the scheme should be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to
residential accommodation in close proximity. Guidance can be obtained from the Institute of
Lighting Engineers which relates to these matters (Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light
Pollution). I would recommend the lighting be designed to provide a standard maintained
illumination (LUX) of between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower level being the preferable one.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/51089/FUL
APPLICANT:
Wilterton Ltd
LOCATION:
Crown Theatre Church Street Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of rear extension, alterations to the existing
elevations, an increase in roof height by 2.4m and the erection of
five storey rear extension to the rear together with the conversion
of existing building to form 37 apartments and two retail units
together with associated landscaping and car parking
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the ‘L-shaped’ former Crown Theatre, Church Street, Eccles. The
building is Grade II Listed and was last used as a bingo hall. It has been vacant for the last 20years
and is now a building at risk of being lost. This application should be considered alongside the
application for Listed Building Consent (05/51404/LBC).
To the north of the site is a sign making company, beyond which are residential properties.
Planning permission was approved in November 2004 for the demolition of the sign making
company and the erection of a terrace of four dwellings (04/49160/FUL). To the east of the site are
flats set in landscaped gardens. To the south, on the opposite side of Church Street, is an open
grassed area with a public footpath running through. To the west, on the opposite side of Mather
Road but fronting Church Street, is a parade of retail premises, some with flats above. Beyond this
parade is the Patricroft Key Local Centre (60m away).
The proposal is to convert the existing building and to erect a five-storey rear extension to provide
37 apartments together with retail space at ground floor (232m2 floorspace of which 110m2 is retail
storage). There is an existing single storey rear extension that was a later addition to the building.
It is proposed to demolish this extension to create 8 on-site car parking spaces, cycle and bin
storage and a small area of landscaping.
Three new angled windows, which would project between 1 and 1.2m from the eastern elevation
and which would extend the full height of the building are also proposed. These would be set back
8m, 10.8m and 13.2m from the front elevation. In addition, a similar projecting structure is
proposed to provide balconies to the living rooms of three of the residential units (at first, second
and third floor levels). These balconies would again project from the eastern elevation but would
be set back 1.1m from the front elevation. They would project 2.2m. All four window/balcony
structures would be finished in timber cladding.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The 5-storey rear extension would form part of the east facing elevation and would project 12.5m
in a northerly direction (from the rear of the building) to form a small courtyard as detailed above.
The extension would be approximately 8.7m wide and would be supported on stilts to allow for
additional parking at ground floor level. It would be constructed from a mixture of brickwork,
render and glass block and would incorporate circular feature windows in the east facing elevation.
Projecting from the east facing elevation (made up of both the existing building and the proposed
extension) would be a new 5-storey external staircase together with a series of 5 balconies (one for
each floor). The staircase and balcony structure would collectively measure 7.8m X 2.7m and
would be set back 15.2m from the front elevation. This structure would be constructed from glass
block and render.
Alterations to the main roof of the building are proposed which would result in an increase in its
height at the rear of 2.4m. The small roof extension would be recessed from the main faēade by
0.3m and would be constructed from brickwork that would contrast with the existing elevations to
highlight it as a modern addition.
Due to variations in floor levels within the building, various alterations to window openings are
also proposed. In addition, two new double door openings are proposed in the front elevation
(south) to serve the proposed retail units.
SITE HISTORY
04/48824/COU and 04/48818/LBC – No decision has been issued on these applications. The
developer has stated his intention to withdraw these applications following a decision on the
current applications.
In March 2003, planning permission was refused for the erection of one 5 storey block of 19 two
bedroom apartments together with the creation of new vehicular access (03/45454/FUL)
In December 2002, a planning application was withdrawn for the erection of one five storey block
of 19 apartments together with creation of new vehicular access (02/45093/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections, but recommendations made with regard to
preventing noise nuisance.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Several concerns raised.
recommend the proposal is constructed in line with the ‘Secured By Design’ scheme.
Environment Agency – no objection.
United Utilities – no objection, but recommendations made with regard to drainage.
17
They
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The Theatres Trust – Although concern is raised with regard to level of demolition and
reconfiguration of architectural elements, it is accepted that more sympathetic uses are unviable
because of the overall cost of repair and restoration. Therefore, they support the scheme on the
basis that the external shell will be restored to make this a landmark building for the area.
However, they are of the opinion that more extensive restoration of the main theatre elevation
should be carried out to compensate for the extensive internal demolition. They request
specifically that the following restorations/details be considered:
The parapet pinnacles, relief moulding and pyramid-shaped roof;
The canopy; and
The details of the new entrance doors.
It is also requested that a condition be attached for a record of the internal elements to be made
prior to the commencement of development.
English Heritage – Objection is raised to the loss of the principle staircase and clarification is
requested with regard to the re-use of the cast iron columns. However, since their comments the
scheme has been amended to allow retention of the principle staircase.
Ancient Monuments Society – support the views of the Theatres Trust.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 4th August 2005.
A site notice was displayed on 26th July 2005.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
190-204 (even), 190A, Church Street
St Marys Presbytery, Hemming Drive
1-9 (odd), 1A, 2, 2A, 4, 4B, 4C, 4D, and garage premises Mather Road
Garner House, Lowry House, Harty House and Buckle House Monton Lane
2-6 (even) Plum Tree Close (off Mather Road)
47 Catherine Street
6 Byron Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Policies:
UR6 Existing Housing Stock and Housing Renewal
SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Area
UR4 Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
ER3 Built Heritage
ER4 Contribution of Built Heritage to Regeneration
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7/1 Housing Area Improvement and Renewal – Private Sector
Other policies:
EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
Conservation Areas
H1 Meeting Housing Needs
H6 & H11 Open Space Provision
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV2 Good Design
DEV4 Design and Crime
T13 Car Parking
S2 Location of New Retail Development
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
ST11 Location of New Development
CH2 Works to Listed Buildings
H1 Provision of New Housing Development
H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 Design and Crime
S2B Retail and Leisure Development Outside Town Centres,
Neighbourhood Centres and Salford Quays
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of development, the impact
of the development on the listed building and surrounding area, the impact of the development on
the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and the amenity provisions for future occupants.
Principle of Development
Both H1 policies seek to meet the housing needs of all groups within Salford. Policy H7/1
promotes the improvement of housing in the area. Policy SD1 states that development should be
focused within the North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. Policy UR6 seeks to
improve the quality of the Region’s housing stock by ensuring sufficient supply across all tenures
and values.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The development would see the re-use of an existing building thus complying with criteria 1A of
Policy ST11 and the guidance contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 – Housing
(PPG3), which seeks to prioritise conversion of buildings and the development of previously
developed land over land which has not been previously developed (greenfield land). This is
reiterated in Policy UR4 which states that the redevelopment and re-use of vacant sites within
urban areas should be a priority. This policy sets a target for at least 90% of new dwellings in
Salford to be on previously developed land.
Policy S2B states that the City Council will normally require all new retail development to be
located in or immediately adjacent to existing shopping centres, unless it is to meet purely local
needs. It goes on to say that such developments must be of an appropriate scale and character to
the areas which they serve. The policy also identifies exceptions which may justify new retail
development. The first criterion refers to urban regeneration. Policy S2B sets out a number of
criteria which must be satisfied prior to the granting of planning permission. The general thrust of
the policy seeks to ensure that retail development outside of town and neighbourhood centres are
accessible, necessary, of an appropriate scale, would not have an negative impact on the character
of the area or residential amenity and would not detract from the vitality of nearby centres. This
proposal would offer significant regeneration benefits for the area, and would encourage a greater
mix of uses. The scale of the retail element is appropriate for the local area and would not, in my
view, detract from the vitality of the neighbouring centres or neighbouring businesses. The site is
in a highly accessible location well served by public transport. In terms of the necessity of the
development, the ground floor retail element is appropriate in this location and would play a
significant role in rescuing the listed building and making it a functional element of the local area.
Policy CH2 states that a change of use from the original use of a listed building will only be
permitted where it is not practical or economically feasible to continue that original use, or a new
use is required to secure the long-term future of the listed building. Policy EN12 encourages new
uses for Listed Buildings where it can be shown that the buildings are no longer able to support
their original use. The building has been vacant for 20years and is now seen as a building at risk of
being lost. It is unrealistic to expect that the building will be brought back into use as a theatre.
Therefore, I am satisfied that the conversion of this listed building will secure its long-term future
and am satisfied with the principle of development.
Impact of the development on the Listed Building and the Amenity of the Area
Policy ER3 seeks to protect, conserve and enhance the built heritage of the Region. Policy ER4
seeks to use the Regions built heritage to drive forward urban regeneration. Policy CH2 states that
proposals involving the alteration or change of use of a listed building will only be permitted
where they would preserve or enhance the character and features of special architectural or historic
interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing. This is reiterated in Policy EN12. Policy
DEV2 seeks to ensure good design for all new developments.
The former Crown Theatre is a landmark building for Eccles and is in a very prominent location.
At present it is falling into severe dis-repair and is in need of significant investment. This proposal
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
would provide the necessary investment to bring the building back into use which would in turn act
as a catalyst for the regeneration of the wider area.
The proposal would retain the main frontages of the building and would result in their repair and
cleaning. Given the extensive demolition that is taking place and the advice of the Theatres Trust,
a condition has been attached for three original features of the building which were above the front
(Church Street) elevation to be re-instated. These are:
The parapet pinnacles;
Relief moulding; and
Pyramid-shaped roof.
To make the conversion of the building economically viable, a large 5-storey extension is
proposed to the rear. The extension would marry with the east facing elevation and would respect
the scale and massing of the parent building. The modern materials proposed for the extension, as
with the other additions to the building, would distinguish them from the original Theatre and
would result in notable contrasts. The alterations proposed respect the character and setting of the
listed building and, in my view, would contribute to the organic history of the building in
accordance with Annex C5 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic
Environment (PPG15).
Impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and the provisions for future occupants
Policies DEV1, DES1, and DES7 seek to protect the amenities of neighbouring residents in terms
of privacy, sunlight/daylight and general disturbance.
Council Guidance stipulates minimum separation distances from habitable room windows in order
to provide future occupants and neighbouring residents with sufficient levels of amenity. There
would be a distance of 17m from facing habitable room windows to the gable wall of the single
storey sign making building to the north. The recently approved planning application
(04/49160/FUL), if implemented, would maintain the same separation distance but would
introduce a two-storey gable elevation facing part of the main rear elevation of the former Crown
Theatre, which is acceptable in this context.
There would be a distance of 11m to the single storey properties on the opposite side of Mather
Road. I am satisfied with the separation distances that this development would maintain.
The applicant has provided a sunlight / shadowing study to illustrate the impact of the proposed
extension on the amenities of future occupiers of the dwellings to the north (as approved by
04/49160/FUL). The study shows that during the summer months, when people are most likely to
be in their gardens, the extension has no impact. The shadow of the Theatre and extension would
not reach the gardens because the solar azimuth is high. During Spring and Autumn months the
shadow does reach the garden areas in the late morning and early afternoon. Without the
extension, however, some overshadowing would still occur. In the early morning and late
afternoon no overshadowing occurs. In the Winter months significant overshadowing occurs
during the day, but this could be accredited to the existing Theatre and so the extension has only a
minor influence. Given the existing impact of the Theatre and that no overshadowing would result
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
in the Summer months, I am satisfied that the proposed extension would not have an unacceptable
impact on the amenities of the future occupants of the houses.
Policies T13 and A10 seek to achieve appropriate provision of parking for new developments.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport and Policy A10 seek to encourage the use of more
sustainable forms of travel such as public transport, cycling and car sharing. Therefore, one of the
measures encouraged is maximum levels of parking. The site is located on a major arterial road
which is well served by public transport. It is also close to Eccles Town Centre and the Patricroft
Key Local Centre. Given the advice of Government, the constraints of the site and the benefits of
bringing the Listed Building back into use, I am satisfied with the level of parking proposed.
However, I am concerned about the parking layout proposed and its accessibility and security.
Therefore, I have attached a condition which requires a revised layout to be submitted and agreed.
Policies H6 & H11 and also H8 require appropriate formal and informal open space within
developments. These policies also require a contribution for open space provision which is
outlined in Supplementary Planning Guidance – Provision of Open Space and Recreation Space
Associated with New Residential Development. As such the applicant is required to make adequate
provision for open space or contribute through a commuted sum payment to local environmental
improvements. A total sum of £62,257 is levied and the applicant has been notified of this
payment. Local environmental improvements could be through any combination of street works,
public art, art projects and community policing or other local environmental improvements.
Although the level of amenity space proposed in-curtilage is limited, the regeneration benefits
which this development would bring for the area are significant.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 require development to be designed to minimise the risk of crime. The
decorative half-height railings proposed for the windows fronting Mather Road would, in my
view, help improve the character of the listed building whilst improving security. Supplementary
Planning Guidance – Designing Out Crime encourages natural surveillance for new developments
(i.e. windows overlooking parking areas and courtyards in order to discourage criminal activity).
The proposal would provide sufficient levels of natural surveillance for the central courtyard and
parking area. However, further details of fencing and entrances is required. A condition has been
attached for a crime prevention scheme to be submitted and agreed which will deal with these
issues. An informative has also been attached which explains that if ‘Secured By Design’
accreditation is secured from Greater Manchester Police, then the Council will be satisfied with the
security of the proposal subject to implementation. Therefore, I consider the proposal to be in
accordance with Policies DEV4 and DES11.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The original proposal included the removal of several trees on the adjacent site to the east
(the amenity land of the adjacent flats) to provide additional car parking. Following
negotiation, this element was removed.
Timber windows will replace the UPVc windows originally proposed and extruded
aluminium rainwater pipes and gutters will replace the plastic originally proposed. This
will enhance the character of the listed building.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Half-height decorative railings have been incorporated into the development for several of
the ground floor windows fronting Mather Road. This would contribute to the character of
the listed building whilst improving the security for future residents.
Reinstatement of the pyramidal tower cap, pinnacles and relief moulding.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of development, the impact
of the development on the listed building and surrounding area, the impact of the development on
the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and the amenity provisions for future occupants. I am
satisfied that the principle of the development is acceptable and that the proposal would enhance
the character and setting of the listed building. I consider that the proposal will not have a
detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and that the amenity provisions for
future occupants would be satisfactory. I therefore recommend the application for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the
external elevations of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
3. The materials to be used for the windows of the development shall be timber, the style and
finish of which shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
commencement of development. The materials to be used for the rainwater pipes and gutters
shall be extruded aluminium.
4. The retail elements hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays
and shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 8am and 6pm on all other days.
5. The windows of all habitable rooms to the elevation facing Church Street shall be acoustically
dual glazed to the standards of the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended). An
alternative would be to install sealed double glazed units comprising glass of 10mm and
laminated 6.4mm with a 12mm air gap. The unit shall be installed in accordance with the
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
manufacturer's recommendations to avoid air gaps when fitting the frames. Alternative means
of ventilation, which must be sound attenuated, shall be provided to these rooms prior to first
occupation and shall be maintained thereafter. The details of the ventilation shall be agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.
6. 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.
7. Notwithstanding the details of the plans, a revised parking layout shall be submitted to and
approved in writing y the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of
development. The approved layout shall be hardsurfaced and marked out prior to first
occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved and shall be made available thereafter for
the parking of residents and visitors cars.
8. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme to reduce the vulnerability of the
development to crime shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the
development hereby approved and retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
9. No development shall be commenced until details for the provision of replica parapet
pinnacles, relief moulding and a pyramid tower cap above the Church Street elevation of the
building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. The parapet pinnacles, relief moulding and a pyramid tower cap shall be carried out
in accordance with approved details prior to the first occupation of any dwelling or retail unit
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
10. 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.
11. Prior to the commencement of development, detailed elevations for the retail units shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme
shall be implemented as part of the approval hereby granted consent.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
12. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing recycling of waste
from the development 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 commercial and residential units hereby approved.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. To ensure the development respects the character of the listed building in accordance with
policy EN12 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
8. Standard Reason R040A Secured from crime
9. To ensure the development respects the character of the listed building in accordance with
policy EN12 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
10. 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.
11. Standard Reason R004A Safeguard of Area
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
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.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
2. Please note that the basement will be vulnerable to flooding and therefore should be pumped.
3. Please find attached a copy of the consultation response from United Utilities which raises
issues that need to be considered.
4. With regards to condition 8 and crime reduction measures, it is advised that the developer
contacts the Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit to discuss the Secured By
Design accreditation scheme. It is advised that the principles of Secured by Design form the
basis for the scheme which is to be submitted to the LPA. Any development which secures
accreditation under the Secured by Design scheme shall be considered to have satisfied the
requirements of this condition.
5. Please find attached a copy of the consultation response from Greater Manchester Police which
raises issues that need to be considered with regard to crime prevention. These issues should
be dealt with as part of condition 8.
6. With regard to the replica tower cap, pinnacles and relief moulding, please contact Mark Price
from the Theatres Trust [(020) 7836 8519] for further advice before the scheme is submitted to
the City Council.
7. This approval relates to the amended plans that were received on 1st December 2005.
APPLICATION No:
05/51200/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Lazer Reich
LOCATION:
2 Legh Road Salford M7 4RT
PROPOSAL:
Erection of front porch, two storey side extension, single storey
rear extension and construction of dormer extension in roof space
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The property is located on the corner of Legh Road and Brantwood Road and has significant
windowed elevations facing onto both roads. The rear elevation is also prominent when viewed
northwards along Legh Road. The 2 storey side extension (which actually fronts onto Legh Road)
extends 4.4 metres towards the boundary with Legh Road, the distance to the boundary with Legh
Road being reduced to 1.75 metres. In addition there is an angled square bay window at ground
floor which would come within 0.65 metre of the same boundary. The existing property has a
hipped roof but it is now proposed to create a gabled elevation to the roof which is designed to
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
facilitate the incorporation of a rear dormer across the rear elevation of the new roof. The front
porch would be a relatively large flat roofed structure (projecting 1.9 metres and 4 metres wide).
The single storey rear extension projects 2.4 metres along the boundary with the adjoining semi
and 4.9m on the other side parallel to and within 1.75 meters of Legh Road.
SITE HISTORY
04/49078/HH- Erection of new front porch, part two storey part single storey side extension and
single storey rear extension – Refused 21.10.2004 due to being within 2m of side boundary.
04/49562/HH - Erection of new front porch, part two storey/part single storey side extension and
single storey rear extension (Resubmission of planning application 04/49078/HH)- Approved
24.12.2004
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
16 to 20 New Hall Road
2 Brantwood Road
1 Brantwood Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of representation and one letter of objection has been received in
response to the planning application publicity. The issues raised are:Loss of light
The letter supports the application
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8-House Extensions
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7- Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
DES7 – no modifications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues related to this application are the cumulative impact of the two storey
side, single storey extension, front porch and impact of the dormer on the street scene and the
character of the original dwelling house.
Policy DEV8 of the Adopted UDP and Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
Plan state that development will not be permitted where it would have an adverse impact upon the
occupiers or users of other developments in the vicinity or an unacceptable impact on the character
and appearance of the street scene. Policies DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan
reiterate the sentiments of DEV8.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) was adopted in December 2002 after
public consultation. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards
maintained when determining householder applications.
SPG policy HH14 requires that a minimum 2m separation distance is maintained between the
proposed gable wall of a side extension and the boundary with the pavement. This is to preserve
the building line of the street scene and prevent an extension dominating the street scene. The
proposed two storey side extension would project out from the side of the existing gable elevation
by 4.4m. This would result in a two storey gable elevation being only 0.65m from the boundary
with Legh Road. There is a well-detailed building line on Legh Road and the property is located on
a prominent corner site at the crest of the road. As such the proposed two storey side extension
combined with a gable end roof would have a significant detrimental impact on the street scene
that would be out of character with the other properties in Legh Road . The single storey rear
extension projects 2.4 metres along the boundary with the adjoining semi and 4.9m on the other
side parallel to and within 1.75 meters of Legh Road. The combination of the two extensions is
considered contrary to HH14 and HH8. This is considered contrary to Adopted UDP Policy DEV8
and Revised UDP Policy DES7.
Policy HH15 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions states that
dormers are not normally acceptable where they face an adopted highway used by vehicular traffic
and are not an original feature of the street scene unless they are designed in such a way that their
impact can be significantly reduced. It goes on to provide specific guidance on how dormers can be
designed in order to minimise their impact upon the street scene advocating dormers which have
pitched or hipped roofs and are sited below the ridge line and set well back and in from the eaves.
The proposed dormer has a “boxy” design and it is very large extending across the entire roof from
the ridge to the eaves. The absence of boxy design on the original house and the conversion of the
roof to create a gable end also accentuate the bulkiness of the dormer. The proposed dormer would
therefore form a very obvious and incongruous feature within the roofspace, which would, as a
result of the position of the rear of 2 Legh Road be clearly visible to those travelling through Legh
Road. This high visibility and poor design means that the proposed dormer would have an adverse
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
impact upon the street scene and the character and appearance of the original dwellinghouse. The
development is therefore contrary to policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan, policies DES7 and DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan and policies HH8
and HH15 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House Extensions
The are some inconsistencies and omissions from the plans:- No side elevations of the proposed
porch and no side elevations for the steps and “decking” to the rear and no plans illustrating the
extent of the “decking” or balcony to the rear have been received.
This proposal could set a precedent for further similar extensions within the surrounding area as
there are many properties on corner plots which have scope for similar proposals. Cumulatively
this leads to erosion of the character of the area and has a detrimental impact upon the character
and appearance of the original dwellinghouse.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the siting of the house is such that the proposed development would be highly visible to
those travelling along Legh Street. The boxy design of the dormer in combination with the gabling
up of the roof means that the proposed dormer forms an incongruous feature within the roofscape
which would have a negative effect on the street scene. It is therefore contrary to policy DEV8 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, policies DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Plan and policy HH15 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on House
Extensions.
The size and siting of the two storey side extension and the single storey rear extension results in a
dominant and strident feature obtrusive feature in the street scene that also has a detrimental
impact upon the character and appearance of the original dwellinghouse. I am of the opinion that
the proposal does not comply with the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement UDPs and the House Extension Supplementary Planning Guidance and
therefore recommend it for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed 2 storey side extension would by reason of its size position and design be
detrimental to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling house and would be an
obtrusive feature in the street scene contrary to policies HH8 and HH14 of the City of Salford
Supplementary Planning Guidance and DEV8 of the Adopted UDP and DES8 of the Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement UDP
2. The proposed dormer extension would by reason of its size position and design be detrimental
to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling house and would be an obtrusive
feature in the street scene contrary to policies HH8 and HH15 of the City of Salford
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Supplementary Planning Guidance and DEV8 of the Adopted UDP and DES8 of the Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement UDP
3. The proposed porch would by reason of its size position and design be detrimental to the
character and appearance of the existing dwelling house and would be an obtrusive feature in
the street scene contrary to policy HH8 of the City of Salford Supplementary Planning
Guidance and DEV8 of the Adopted UDP and DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
UDP
4. The proposed single storey rear extension would by reason of its size position and design be
detrimental to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling house and would be an
obtrusive feature in the street scene contrary to policies HH8 and HH14 of the City of Salford
Supplementary Planning Guidance and DEV8 of the Adopted UDP and DES8 of the Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement UDP
5. The submitted plans have omitted important elevations and layout details in respect of the
decking/balcony.
APPLICATION No:
05/51282/FUL
APPLICANT:
The David Ellwood Lever Sipp
LOCATION:
48 Park Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing office building and erection of one three
storey building comprising nine apartments together with
associated car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
BACKGROUND
At the meeting of the Panel held on 17th of November 2005 consideration of this application was
deferred in order that –
To give further consideration to the architectural merit of the building and the potential for
listing
The applicant could make amendments to the scheme that would address concerns relating
to scale and massing, design and impact on neighbouring residents at 50 Park Road.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
1. Architectural merit The building is not on the Council’s Local List. However at the request of Councillor Ainsworth
the Council’s conservation officer has inspected the building. He does not feel that the building is
worthy of listing for two reasons. Firstly the building does not possess any features of architectural
merit as the architectural style of the building is mundane and the original windows have been
replaced and secondly the building does not have any historic significance as it was not designed
by a notable architect and no noteworthy people have occupied it in the past.
2. Amendments to the scheme –
The architect has made numerous changes to the original scheme that reduces the scale and mass
of the proposed building when viewed in the street. These include –
1. Amending the footprint of the building so that the front elevation is staggered in order to
give the impression that the building is made up of 2 distinct portions, a main block and a
subordinate block which is set back 0.6m from the main frontage.
2. Altering the roof structure by splitting the roof into two sections, one for each “block”. The
pitch of both sections of roof is shallower and as a result the mass of roof has been reduced
as has the overall height of the building has gone from 10.8m to 10m.
3. Altering the design of the building by introducing a front entrance and a vertical rather than
a horizontal emphasis
The amended scheme also reduces the impact the development would have on the occupants of 50
Park Road. This has been achieved by
Altering the footprint of the proposed apartments and position of the proposed apartments
in relation to the common boundary to ensure greater separation. Previously the apartments
were set 1m in from the common boundary, this has been increased to 2m at the front
increasing to 2.8m at the rear where footprint of the apartments has been altered to step
away from the boundary.
Altering the design of the apartments so the accommodation to the rear at second floor
level is provided partly in the roof space. This has allowed the ridge height of the roof to be
reduced from 10.8m to 10m and the pitch of the roof to be reduced. Together these
revisions have served to dramatically reduce the amount of roof and in doing so the
massing of the proposed building when viewed from 50 Park Road.
Also the roof would have a shallow hipped end (gable originally) so shortening the overall
roofscape and the ridge. The architect has also increased the level of amenity space provided by
84% by increasing the communal area and providing “gardens” to 3 of the proposed flats. The
location of bin and cycle stores has also been clearly shown on the plans. As I had previously I
have placed a condition on the permission that requires full details to be submitted prior to the
commencement of development.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The original report is detailed below. The section immediately below are comments made by
Councillor Ainsworth following the publication of the agenda and my response.
Councillor Ainsworth
Car parking and access–
The driveway and gated access inhibit users of car parking space number 1 (located to the
front of the property) from entering/leaving the site in a forward gear.
The driveway is not wide enough to allow two way flow of traffic
The location of Park Road in close proximity to Hope Hospital means that existing on road
car parking space is already under pressure and as a result residents only parking scheme
and a restricted waiting bay have been introduced. Consequently Cllr Ainsworth is of the
opinion that on site parking provision is inadequate as there is no provision for visitors and
the possible demand for car parking by residents of the proposed apartments could exceed
supply as the proposed apartments are all 2 bed and only 9 spaces are provided.
Cllr Ainsworth has also requested that members are made aware of the proposed changes to policy
A10 advocated by the Inspector in their review of the revised deposit draft replacement plan
namely the addition of a penultimate paragraph that states “Car parking provision in residential
developments will be assessed on a case by case basis, having regard to the type and
accommodation of the properties, their location, the availability of and proximity to public
transport, the availability of shared parking facilities, and the existing level of on street parking.
Development with more than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per dwelling or unit of accommodation,
averaged over the city area, is unlikely to be regarded as sustainable”.
Dwelling type – The most appropriate from of new residential development that would contribute
to a balanced mix of housing in the area would be larger family houses not the apartments
proposed.
Design – The attractiveness of the design is a matter of subjective opinion. If any new building is
to make as distinctive a contribution to the streetscape and contribute to the present eclectic mix of
styles present along Park Road then it should be more 'modernistic' and 'purist' design.
Contribution to open space within the area - Policy H8 applies and therefore the developer should
make a contribution, via a section 106 agreement, to open space provision within the area,
particularly given that the locality is identified within the UOSS as being deficient in formal and
informal recreation space and the development would create additional demand for open space.
Cllr Ainsworth has also asked that a note be made of his lack of awareness of vandalism to the
building despite being both a local resident and a local Councillor.
In the light of these observations and those made previously Cllr Ainsworth has requested that the
conditions that require the following are attached –
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
A contribution to the provision and or maintenance of public open space in the vicinity
of the site.
Either a contribution to the introduction of a residents parking scheme or a restriction
on the number of car owning residents that can occupy the apartments together with a
ban on occupants of the proposed apartment obtaining residents parking permits.
Details of the proposed cycle store and bin stores.
The driveway and car park to be surfaced in paviors.
A revision to the proposed car-parking layout to ensure compliance with the minimum
standards for disabled spaces
A revision to the front elevation, which involves the removal of the ground floor
French doors and the insertion of traditional windows.
My Response to Cllr Ainsworth’s Additional Observations
Policy H8 seeks to secure new open space or open space improvements as part of new housing
developments and is to be read in conjunction with the Council Supplementary Planning Guidance
on Open Space Provision that provides details of when a contribution to open space provison is
required and what the contribution should be. It states that the policy only applies to developments
that encorporate 50 or more bedspaces (the number of bedspaces in each dwelling/apartment being
equal to the number of bedrooms plus one). In this case 27 bedspaces would be provided,
insufficient to trigger the requirement for open space provison and therefore I cannot attach a
condition that requires a contribution to open space provision in the locality.
Attaching a condition restricting the number of car owning residents of the proposed apartments
would not satisfy the 6 tests of a condition as such a condition would not be reasonable nor would
it be enforceable. A condition requiring a contribution to the introduction of additional residents
car parking would not satisfy the 6 tests either as it would not be reasonable as the proposed
development would not generate significant traffic or parking demand.
Details of the proposed cycle stores have already been provided and a condition has been attached
that requires the details of the proposed bin stores to be submitted and approved prior to the
commencement of development. Similarly a landscaping condition has been attached which
requires details of any proposed surface treatments to be submitted and approved prior to the
commencement of development.
With regards to the provision of disabled car parking the standards in the revised deposit draft
replacement plan state that 5% of the total number of parking spaces provided should be suitable
for use by disabled persons. To be suitable spaces should be 3.6m wide. 9 spaces will be provided
on site and therefore 1 disabled space should be provided. The proposed car-parking layout does
not currently include any spaces suitable for use by disabled persons. It can however be amended
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
in order to incorporate 1 space and therefore I have added a condition requiring a revised car
parking layout that incorporates 1 disabled space to be submitted and approved prior to the
commencement of development.
I do not feel that it is necessary to revise the design of the proposed apartments.
An additional letter of representation has also been received since the writing of the attached
report. The writer does not raise any new issues to those already highlighted.
ORIGINAL PANEL REPORT
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site comprises of a vacant three-storey office building together with and a single
storey outbuilding to the rear. The site fronts onto Park Road and is bounded on three sides by
residential properties. Vehicular access into the site is from Park Road.
The proposed L shaped building would be three storeys in height. It would be a minimum of 5m
from the back of the footpath on Park Road. It would be set in 1m from the boundary with 50 Park
Road and would run for 16m along this boundary. It would have a 16m frontage along Park Road.
It would be 7.3m to the eaves and 10.8m to the ridge. A total of nine car parking spaces would be
provided to the rear of the proposed building and vehicular access into the site would be gained
from Park Road. A cycle storage area would also be provided within the site.
SITE HISTORY
An application for the demolition of the existing offices and the erection of a three-storey building
comprising of 9 apartments together with associated landscaping was submitted in May 2005 (Ref
– 05/50659/FUL). This application was withdrawn in June 2005.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 13th of September 2005.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
37 to 43m (odd) Park Road
50 to56 (even) Park Road
St Peter & St Paul Church, Park Road
1 and 3 Tandis Court
6 to 18 (even) Tandis Court
9 to 17 (odd) Tandis Court
21 Victoria Road
63 to 79 (odd) Victoria Road
77 and 83 St Georges Crescent
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
209 Eccles Old Road
Gilda Brook Post Offices, 258 Eccles Old Road.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 12 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity, including one from Councillor Ainsworth. The following issues have been raised:Inadequate plans that are difficult to understand
Loss of a building with lots of character that makes a positive contribution to the area
The building should be reused for office purposes – Salford does not need any more
apartments but more affordable family accommodation and more specifically in this area
accommodation for hospital workers.
The building should be reused as according to the Inspector’s report priority should be
given to the re-use of buildings that are sound and worthy of re-use.
Disruption during the construction period
Loss of view
Loss of light
Overshadowing
Loss of privacy
Inadequate parking provision
Over-development of the site
Insufficient amenity space for future residents
Failure to provide a separate pedestrian access will result in conflicts between pedestrians
and vehicular traffic to the detriment of pedestrian safety
Insufficient space to maintain the side if the building that runs along the boundary with 50
Park Road
Impact on trees
Disruption during the construction period and loss of view are not material planning
considerations, nor is future maintenance of the building.
Cllr Ainsworth also raised concerns about the position of the gated access and its relationship to
car parking space number 1 which would, in his opinion, inhibit users of space 1 to enter and leave
the site in a forward gear, thus causing highway safety concerns.
Councillor Ainsworth has also requested that members consider a site visit in order to appreciate
the scale and context of what is proposed (and the difficulties likely to impact on existing
residents) and to respond to the significant amount of local opposition, as many residents cannot
attend this meeting.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Other policies: Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 Location of New Development
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
ST11 – recommended re-wording to give priority to the re-use/conversion of existing buildings
where they are sound and worthy of reuse and/or of architectural or historic interest and their
re-use is effective.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in the determination of the application to be: whether the principle of the
use is acceptable; whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents; whether the design of the proposed building is acceptable; whether the
proposed level of car parking is acceptable; whether the proposal would be satisfactorily secure;
and whether the proposed development accords with the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement UDP. I shall deal with each in turn below.
Principle Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to the location of new development, which gives
priority to previously developed land ahead of Greenfield land. In his report the Inspector has
recommended that the policy be amended to give priority to the re-use/conversion of existing
buildings where they are sound and worthy of reuse and/or of architectural or historic interest
ahead of other previously developed land.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The site is currently occupied by a three-storey building and a single storey outbuilding, which
have been vacant for a number of years as they are not compliant with legislation passed under the
Disability Discrimination Act. The applicant submitted a supporting statement that outlines their
reasoning for not re-using the existing buildings. They state that their ability to be reused for office
purposes or converted to residential accommodation is limited as considerable economic outlay
would be required to make the buildings DDA compliant and suitable for use particularly given
that the buildings have been vandalised in the past and the out building is in a poor state of repair.
Consequently the applicant is of the opinion that re-use or conversion of the existing buildings
would not therefore be an effective solution to bring the site back into use. I am satisfied with this
justification for not reusing the existing buildings and therefore I am of the opinion that the
proposed development is in accordance with the sequential approach to the location of new
development outlined in Policy ST11 and the Inspectors Report.
I do not have any objections to the demolition of the existing buildings as the site is not located
within a conservation area and the buildings themselves do not have any architectural merit nor do
they have any “special” history that makes them worthy of listing or re-use.
The application site is located in a predominantly residential area and I am therefore of the opinion
that the use of the land for residential purposes would be compatible with surrounding land uses.
Adopted Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city’s housing stock is
able to meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford by promoting a number of
measures, including the release of land to accommodate new house building.
Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.
The surrounding area comprises predominantly semi-detached and terraced dwellings, and I am
therefore of the opinion that, as this application proposes apartments, it would contribute to the
provision of a mix of dwelling types in the area, in accordance with policies H1. I therefore
consider the principle of the proposed development to be acceptable.
Amenity of neighbours and future residents
Adopted Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard should be had in the
determination of planning applications. Of most relevance to this application are the location of the
proposed development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size and
density of the proposed development and the impact on neighbouring residents.
Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
There would be habitable room window-to-window separation distances of 23.5m to the properties
at the rear of Victoria Road and 24m to those opposite on Park Road. The proposed apartments
would not therefore result those on Victoria Road or Park Road experiencing a loss of privacy or a
reduction in the residential amenity they can reasonable expect to enjoy.
The relationship between the proposed apartment block and the properties located within Tandis
Court is such that there would not be any facing habitable room windows. At its closest the
building would be located 13.5m from the habitable room windows contained within Tandis
Court, the same as the existing building. There are 2 mature trees on the common boundary of the
site, which provide screening. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposed apartment block
would not form an overbearing structure and therefore its introduction would not have an adverse
impact upon the amount of light the residents of Tandis Court currently receive. Consequently the
residential amenity the occupants of Tandis Court currently enjoy would not be adversely affected
by the proposal.
The residential amenity the occupants of 50 Park Road would not be affected by the proposal
either as those residents at 50 Park Road do not have any habitable room windows in their gable
end and the building would not project beyond a 45-degree line drawn from any habitable room
window in the rear elevation of the property.
In the light of the above separation distances, I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable
detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or future residents of the neighbouring dwellings
and the proposed apartments. I am therefore of the opinion that the application accords with Policy
DES7.
Design
Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the
Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.
Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
The majority of the adjacent buildings are two storeys in height, I do not however have any
objections to the scale and massing of the proposed building, as it would only be 1m higher than
the existing building and despite having a larger footprint and a more prominent front elevation I
am of the opinion that the proposed building would not have an adverse impact upon the visual
amenity of the area. It respects the existing building line and it is well designed so it incorporates a
number of the local architectural features. I have attached a condition requiring the submission of
samples of materials to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development
and I am satisfied that this will ensure that they will be of a suitably high quality and in keeping
with the surrounding area. This should ensure that the proposed building makes a positive
contribution to the character of the area.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
On the above basis, I am of the opinion that the application accords with Adopted Policy DEV2
and Draft Policy DES1.
Car Parking and access
Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is
provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards and
that car parks are designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements,
surface materials, boundary treatments and security measures.
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
A total of nine car parking spaces would be provided within the site. In addition, there would be a
cycle storage area within the site. The application site is also well located in terms of public
transport. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable and accords
with the Council’s maximum car parking standards.
Part of the proposal involves the widening of the exiting vehicular access, which will be gated
9.5m from the site boundary and the introduction of a separate pedestrian access. The City
Council’s highway engineer is of the opinion that the proposed car parking layout and the new
access is acceptable and therefore I do not have any concerns with the proposal on highway safety
grounds.
Trees
Policy EN7 encourages the conservation of trees and woodland through supporting the retention of
trees and aims to ensure that new tree planting is designed to contribute to landscape quality.
Policy EN10 of the Revised Replacement Plan states that development that would result in the
unacceptable loss of trees will not be permitted.
The adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for trees states that “In the case of residential
buildings, a development in which a principle window (main window to a lounge, dining room or
main bedroom) is overshadowed by a tree, or where any part of a tree is sited within 3.6m of a
window will be resisted”.
There are two large trees within the grounds of 48 Park Road, a sycamore and a horse chestnut.
City of Salford Tree Preservation Order Number 13 protects the sycamore. The horse chestnut is
not protected. The City’s arboricultural consultant has inspected the horse chestnut, which has
been topped in the past, and therefore in his opinion it is not worthy of protection, particularly
given the limited contribution the tree makes to the visual amenity of the area. The applicant has
however stated that they intend to retain the tree and consequently I feel it is appropriate to use
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
protection measures to ensure that its health is not unnecessarily adversely affected by the
proposed development.
In the arboricultural consultants opinion the erection of protective fencing would ensure that the
construction of the proposed apartments would not have a detrimental impact upon the trees. The
separation distances between the canopies of the trees and habitable room windows in the
proposed apartments complies with the guidance in the SPG and therefore the development would
not result in an unacceptable impact upon the trees due to future people pressure either. Overall, I
am therefore satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above regarding
trees.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
As result of my concerns relating to its design and appearance in the street scene the scheme
submitted under 05/50659/FUL has been amended to include architectural features typical of other
buildings in the area. A separate pedestrian access has also been introduced in order to minimise
the potential conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development to be acceptable and that the
proposed scheme would contribute to the provision of a mix of dwelling types in the area. I am
satisfied that the amenity of existing or future residents of neighbouring properties and the
proposed apartments would not be unacceptably detrimentally affected as a result of this scheme
and that the design of the buildings is acceptable. Consequently, I am satisfied that the application
accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I
therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme
shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Planning Authority.
4. Before the first occupation of the apartments hereby permitted, the new vehicular access and
pedestrian access to the development, as shown on the approved plans, shall be provided to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
5. No development shall be started until substantial fences, located 5m from the base of the trees,
have been erected around the sycamore and horse chestnut trees located within the site. Such
fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development and shall
remain until all development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or
storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.
6. Notwithstanding the details submitted, prior to the commencement of development an
arboricultural method statement that details the special procedures and materials that will be
used to remove the tarmacadum within the sphere of influence of the sycamore and
horsechestnut tree and to construct the new driveway, car parking and landscaped areas shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the
tarmacadum shall be removed in accordance with the approved scheme and the new driveway,
car parking and landscaped areas shall be constructed in accordance with the approved
scheme.
7. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of bin
stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such
approved bin stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before the
development is brought into use.
8. Prior to the commencement of development a revised car parking layout providing 9 spaces
that incorporates 1 disabled car parking space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The car park shall be laid out and made available for use prior to
the first occupation of the apartments. Such provision shall be retained and kept available for
use thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
5. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
6. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. To accord with Policy A10 of the revised deposit draft replacement plan in the interests of
highway saftey and residentail amenity.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The permission shall relate to the amended plan received on the 30th of November 2005.
2. The responsibility to properly address contaminated land issues, including safe development,
irrespective of any action taken by this authority, lies with the owner/developer of the site. The
applicant/developer is requested to contact the Council's Environmental Protection Unit as
soon as is practicable should contamination be encountered during development of the site.
Historical map searches have identified a former potentially contaminative use (i.e. may be a
former industrial use, an infilled feature such as a pond etc.) that may effect the development of
the site. You need to ensure that your builder and the building control officer dealing with the
developer are aware of this so that appropriate precautions can be taken to protect the
developer, the public, the environment and the future occupants from contamination issues.
For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Advisory, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the
Environment Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551).
APPLICATION No:
05/51323/HH
APPLICANT:
Lowry Developments
LOCATION:
Lowry House 1 Bank Place Salford M3 6BS
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey rear extension with roof terrace
(re-submission of planning application 04/49814/HH)
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
At a meeting of the Panel held on 1st December 2005 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
My previous observations are as follows:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
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.
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
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.
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.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
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.
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
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
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
The 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
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
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
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 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.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
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 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)
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
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:
05/51317/OUT
APPLICANT:
Urban Splash
LOCATION:
Land To The East And North Of Springfield Lane Adjacent To
The River Irwell Salford
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the erection of 469 flats, a 171 bed hotel
and 3407 sq.m of retail/commercial space (Option 3)
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site comprises 2.6 hectares and is currently vacant having been previously used primarily for
industry and storage uses. The site has been vacant and awaiting redevelopment for some ten
years.
The land lies within the Greengate North area of Central Salford to the north of Trinity Way and
bounding onto the River Irwell as far as Bridgewater Street. The site includes the King William VI
public house and former industrial land on both sides of Springfield Lane. The main interest in the
land lies with the Council although there are two other owning interests.
The application is a red line outline application with all matters reserved. The applicant has
however submitted illustrative information to demonstrate that the development described can be
accommodated on the site, together with a supporting planning statement. The developer is
considering 3 options for the development of this site and has submitted 3 separate outline
applications for each of the options. Each application proposes a different mix and amount of
development but in general terms the development in all 3 options can be described as a high
density, residential led, mixed development in six 9/10 storey building blocks. The illustrative
material has been developed from the original design competition on this site.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The scheme would allow for the building of a footbridge across to development in Manchester
City Centre but this is subject to funding and commercial appraisal and is not at this stage a
commitment. It has been established however that there is a commitment to providing a new
riverside walkway along the Irwell.
The Traffic Engineering Report submitted with the application establishes that access to the
application site and the development proposed, can be provided via Springfield Lane. The report
goes on to say that the impact on the junction at Springfield lane and Trinity Way is not significant
and would not require any material changes to the junction or its signalling. The applicant has
indicated that car parking could be provided at below ground level across the whole site and it has
been demonstrated that 814 parking spaces can be provided.
This application concerns Option 3. This represents the scheme with the least residential content
with 469 flats and unlike the others a large hotel. Each scheme includes retail/commercial uses and
in this case the floorspace amounts to 3407 sq m.
SITE HISTORY
02/44925/DEEM3 – Outline consent for 90 houses and offices (land between Springfield Lane and
the River Irwell). Approved 12.12.2002.
02/44926/DEEM3 – Outline consent for 60 houses and offices (land between Springfield Lane and
the River Irwell). Approved 01.02.2001.
03/46053/OUT – Outline for residential (small site at Reservoir Street and Dean Road). Approved
06/08/2003.
03/46054/OUT – Outline for residential (site if King William VI PH). Approved 06/08/2003.
04/48283/FULL – Change of use to temporary car park. Approved 16/07/2004.
04/49526/OUT - Outline for 178 apartments and 515sq m. offices. (Land opposite the application
site to west of Springfield Lane) Approved 06/01/2005.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services - The site is adjacent to an extremely busy inner ring road
serving Manchester and Salford. The proximity of this road will create certain issues for any future
occupiers of the site. Primarily this relates to noise and also Air Quality resulting from both the
size and scale of the development as well as the surrounding site uses.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The Air Quality aspect will require that an assessment is made to determine the impact of such a
development on the surrounding area, recommending any necessary mitigation measures or other
controls which can attempt to reduce the exposure and impact of the site. A condition will be
recommended which details more specific matters relating to this aspect of the development.
Noise from surrounding site uses will also have to be considered carefully. There are a number of
commercial/retail type outlets on the opposite side of the river at this point. There is a possibility
that noise or other potential nuisances will exist and become apparent to the site on first
occupation. Assessments will have to include such surrounding uses and necessary mitigation
measures for all acoustic matters will have to be developed. Ventilation will also figure highly in
this equation, if mitigation measures are provided to protect against noise ingress, opening
windows will therefore enhance the effects of any noise problems to future occupiers. It may be
necessary to incorporate alternative ventilation to prevent the necessity of opening windows in a
potentially noisy area. A full acoustic assessment will be necessary for the site to identify any areas
which require mitigation measures and to further specify the necessary measures to protect the
amenity of the future site occupiers.
The site is also brownfield, former buildings on the site and various previous uses including the
uprating of the site due to the proximity of the River Irwell will demand that a full assessment into
contaminated land and possible landfill gas will be required.
The combination of Flats and Retail/Commercial/hotel uses on one site may also create possible
conflicts between the future site users. Special attention will have to be paid to the internal layout
of the buildings to ensure that compatible uses are located together, separation distances and
careful arrangement of rooms between individual uses will have to be considered. This will need to
be considered as part of any acoustic assessment as well as part of other matters detailed below.
The commercial and retail uses will have to be mindful of any emissions produced, as there is a
hotel aspect to this development, there is likely to be a degree of commercial catering involved.
This and any other A3, 4 or 5 uses incorporated into the design will have to be considered and
necessary mitigation measures included in any full planning submissions. Noise from such uses
will also require assessment to ensure that the amenity of future occupiers of the site is adequately
against any such deterioration by nature of the mixed use site. It is likely that some form of odour
abatement plants to be installed. Due to the height of the building, it is likely that any such plants
will have to be abatement/neutralisation plants as opposed to a simple dispersion stack which
clears the height of the building.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments received.
Manchester and High Peak Area Footpaths Society – No comments received.
Greater Manchester Pedestrians association – No comments received
Ramblers Association – No comments received.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Open Spaces Society – No comments received
Manchester City Council – No comments received.
Environment Agency –The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment and subject to
appropriate conditions there are no objections in principle.
United Utilities – No objections in principle subject to details and appropriate conditions.
GMPTE – Recommends that the applicant makes a contribution to improvements in the pedestrian
environment and that a Travel plan be requested.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – No objections in principle but has some concerns
in respect of: 6. Need to ensure that quality is compromised by possible over development.
7. The riverside walkway should be a requirement of permission.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 20th October 2005
A site notice was displayed on 13th October 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 11 (o), 17, 2-16(e), 18-28 (e) Georgette Drive.
Greengate Community Centre,
Units 5-11 Irwell House
2-5, 11-16, 21-26, 31-36, 41-46, 51-56, 61-66, 71-76, 81-86, 91-96, 102-106, 111-116,
121-126, 131-136, 141-146, Grey Friar Court
Trident Manufacturing, 89,93, Greengate Street
5, 6, Irwell House, K and T Coatings, Mobility Components, Wilson Hudson, East Phillip
Street
David Bentley, Dunlop Greengate Polymers, Greengate
125 Greengate West
17, The Eagle Inn Collier Street
1-4, 11-16, 21-26, 31-36, 41-46, 51-56, 61-66, 71-76, 81-86, 91-96, 101-106, 111-116,
121-126, 131-136, 141-146, 151-156 Newbank Tower
1-12 Twillbrook Drive
1-17 Poplin Drive
1-32 Evans Street
10- 66(e) Bridgewater Street
15-23(o) Anaconda Drive
Units 2,3,11,12 Springfield Business Centre
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Renault Manchester, Trinity Way
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity to date.
One writer from Evans Street welcomes development but suggests the number of flats is rather
high. In detail the following points are made: Pedestrian facility required at the traffic lights at Springfield lane/Trinity Way
Insufficient car parking
Loss of scrub land may affect run off into the river
Tree planting needed
Continued traffic management to prevent Springfield Road being used as a short cut.
The second writer, also from Evans Street, makes the following points: Replacement landscaping should be of native species to support local wildlife.
The area is used as a common area and that the proposal to make all the land private with
no community access is unacceptable.
10 storey buildings are too high and would overlook existing properties. Such “high rise”
development will set a precedent for other landowners with residential aspirations.
The traffic assessment is considered too optimistic, highway improvements will be
required and parking is inadequate.
The third writer is an architect in practice in Salford considers that the site offers a great
opportunity to bring people to the River Irwell and to improve access along the waterfront. In
detail the following points are made: Loss of trees.
The development is too high.
The scheme is poorly designed in outline.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policy SD1 seeks to focus development and urban renaissance resources, particularly in the
regional pole of Manchester and Salford. The site is located within the area identified as a regional
priority.
Policies DP1 and UR4 encourages the re-use of land and buildings.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
EC13/9 – Sites suitable for industrial and warehousing development.
EN15 – Environmental Improvement Corridor
Other policies:
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
CS2 – Central Salford Greengate North
Spatial Framework – Central Salford will be the major focus for regeneration and investment.
EC3- Re-use of sites and premises.
H10 - Affordable Housing
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
ST2 – Housing Supply
ST3 - Employment Supply
ST7 - Mixed Use development
ST11 – Location of new Development
ST12 – Development Density
A1- Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
H1 - Provision of New Housing Development
H4 – Affordable Housing
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES6 – Waterside Development
DEV5 – Planning Conditions and Obligations
E5 – Development within established Employment Areas.
THE INSPECTORS REPORT
ST2 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
ST3 – recommends minor amendments only.
ST7 – no modifications
ST11 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
ST12 – no modifications
A1 – recommends minor amendments only.
H1 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
H4 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
DES1 – recommends minor amendments only.
DES6 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
DEV5 – recommends minor amendments only
E5 – recommends minor amendments only.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The location of this application site and its development for a mixed use scheme is entirely
consistent with the urban renaissance of our cities. The re-use of sites in our inner cities is essential
to not only achieving sustainable development but also to bring back confidence and improve the
environment (physically, economically and socially) for local communities.
As an outline application with all matters reserved the issues to be addressed relate to: Compliance with policy guidance.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The principle of the land uses proposed.
The scale and density of development proposed.
This report and recommendation does not concern itself with design issues or other matters, which
are reserved.
Compliance with policy guidance.
The development of the application site is entirely consistent with established strategic and spatial
policies at both regional and local level, having regard to the both the uses proposed and the site
location. In particular policy CS2 promotes the renewal of the area through a number of measures
that include “the redevelopment of vacant land between Trinity Way and the River Irwell for a
mixture of new housing, industry and non-retail commercial uses” and “the improvement of
pedestrian links to and along the River Irwell frontage”.
The existing industrial buildings are not worthy of retention and represent outmoded forms of
industrial buildings which are no longer in demand or economically viable. Whilst not retaining
the existing industrial buildings in the area the application is generally consistent with Policy CS2.
Policy EC13/9 of the Unitary Development Plan allocates part of the site for industrial and
warehousing development and this allocation was based on the adjoining land uses and the fact
that the site is in an area of high unemployment. However the relocation of Cromtech Engineering
has enabled the creation of a larger site (the planning application site) which now adjoins
residential areas and allows for a range of other uses to be considered. The inclusion within the
application of retail/commercial uses will allow for jobs to be created thus addressing employment
issues whilst allowing a form of development which is sympathetic to the neighbouring residential
properties. It is therefore considered that the proposals do not conflict with policy EC13/9,
although the emphasis has changed. This change of emphasis is supported by Regional strategies
and policy CS2 of the Unitary Development Plan.
The indicative arrangements in the scheme demonstrates compliance with policy DES6 by
providing significant public realm spaces and access in association with the River Irwell.
The applicant has stated that the site lies in an area with public and Registered Social Landlords
and that the introduction of private sector housing is needed to broaden the mix and range of
dwellings. On this basis it is argued that there is no requirement for affordable housing under
policies H10 and H4. Until such time that the Council have adopted a Supplementary Planning
Document the issue of affordable housing is a matter of negotiation rather than a policy based
requirement. The applicant is in discussion about this matter with both the Council and a
Registered Social Landlord.
The Council has a current policy of securing contributions to support the Chapel Street
Regeneration Strategy. The applicant has made no reference to the making of a financial
contribution in accordance with the policy in the supporting statement. This is considered to be a
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
serious omission and it is proposed that a condition be imposed requiring compliance with the
current policy.
Other detailed policies in respect of design and layout will be considered at reserved matters stage.
The principle of the land uses proposed:
The Planning history indicates that over the past 3 years what was primarily an employment area
has become accepted as a suitable location for housing opportunities. The older industrial uses
were closely adjoined by residential uses and their redevelopment, at least in part, for residential
purposes is considered to be appropriate and consistent with improving the environment for
existing communities.
The site lies within the Manchester and Salford Pathfinder and the residential component to this
scheme will help to create sustainable communities. The residential elements of the proposal are
therefore considered appropriate, particularly in the context of a mixed use scheme.
The applicant refers to a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroomed accommodation, some with large gardens.
Such a mix is to be welcomed but the precise form of development will only be resolved at the
detailed stage of the planning process.
The policies in the Plans concerning employment land and premises have also been developed in
the Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan to reflect a more realistic approach to both the
re-use of old dilapidated industrial uses and the creation of new and relevant working
environments. The application includes 3407 sq m. of retail/commercial floorspace and a 171 bed
roomed hotel which will provide for modern employment opportunities consistent with
employment policies of the Unitary Development Plan.
This option provides a reasonable “mix” of land uses the site can also be considered in the context
of the Regional Centre where there is an established and developing mix of land uses. The site
immediately adjoins the Regional Centre (the boundary lies along Trinity Way) and hence may be
regarded as an extension of the Regional Centre in terms of both the site density and the mix of
land uses. Whilst the application site does have a significant residential component it is very much
associated with the developing mix of land uses within the Regional Centre.
The scale and density of development proposed:
The scale of development is undoubtedly high and in terms of the residential elements equates to
over 215 dwellings per hectare. The only practicable way to achieve this density is by constructing
a high-rise built form. The indicative proposals show that the buildings will be between 8 and 10
storeys high. The applicant has also indicated that with this option much of the ground floor units
will be residential with private open space. The density proposed is again consistent with strategic
policies for this part of the urban core and in particular those associated with the Regional Centre
but the issue remains as to how this will impact on local residents and whether the development
can meet adequate design standards to produce a high quality development.
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
In terms of the local communities the applicant has met with residents and confirmed a
commitment to work with the residents to overcome their specific concerns (as outlined by the
representations referred to above). The Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company has raised
the issue of whether the quality of development will be compromised by the scale of the
development.
Answers to these questions cannot be given at this stage of the process as all matters are reserved.
An assessment of the quality of the development and the impact of the designs on the local
community will be an issue for future applications. The density alone is not necessarily a cause for
concern unless the high-rise option is not acceptable in principle. Based on the indicative layouts
and the indicative height of development, I am satisfied that the amount of development is not
prejudicial to the delivery of an acceptable layout and appropriate space standards, and the
achievement of a good quality development.
The outline transport assessment has indicated that the existing highway infrastructure is capable
of accommodating development without significant physical alterations. The site is also well
located in respect of public transport routes and the rail network.
The issue of specific details required to facilitate development are not for consideration at this
stage. These details need to be the subject of further study and a more detailed analysis but at this
stage I have no objections to the principles of the development in the context of traffic and
transportation.
The request from the GMPTE for a Travel Plan is considered to be a reasonable one in that having
regard to the scale of development it would be sensible to aim to towards minimising use of the car
and maximising access to public transport and cycling and pedestrian facilities.
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied that the redevelopment of this site for a mixed use development incorporating
residential, hotel and retail/commercial uses is acceptable and consistent with the applicable
strategic and spatial policies. The scale of the development and the high rise building solution that
will be required is consistent with other development in Central Salford and is appropriate to this
location. The development and the proposed details would make a positive contribution to the area
and would result in the redevelopment of a vacant and unused land and buildings.
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 to secure the
provision of environmental improvements, open space and recreation space in compliance with the
Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy and Policies H6 and H11, H8 and SPG7.
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition B01B New reserved matters
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
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
commuted sums as required by the Chapel Street Planning Obligations Development Control
Policy Note and 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 environmental improvements, open space and recreation space
purposes.
4. Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development 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.
5. Prior to submission of any reserved matters a full and detailed Transportation Assessment shall
be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any amendments or additions to
the existing infrastructure required by the assessment shall be implemented prior to the first
occupation of any development.
6. That before development commences the detailed design of the riverside walkway and public
realm space shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme
as approved shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any dwelling and shall be
maintained at all times thereafter.
7. No development shall commence until details of the existing and proposed levels have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be constructed
and completed in accordance with the approved levels.
8. Any facilities for the storage of chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded
by impervious bund walls, details of which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority
for approval. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the
capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least
equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or 25% of the total combined capacity of the
interconnected tanks whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with
no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be
located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank
overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.
9. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all
surface water drainage from the River Irwell shall be passed through an oil interceptor
designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with, the site being drained.
Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.
10. No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority. Such a scheme
shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.
11. No development shall commence unless and until the necessary consents have been obtained
for the closure of any rights of way.
12. 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 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 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.
13. No individual A1 or D2 unit located within the development shall have a gross floorspace of
more than 700sq.m. and no hotel shall have more than 171 bedrooms.
14. 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.
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
15. Prior to commencement of development, full details of a scheme for the management,
destruction and/or disposal of Japanese knotweed and Giant Hogweed shall be carried out by
the developer, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This
scheme shall include a timetable for implementation. Should a delay of more than one year
occur between the date of approval of the management scheme and either the date of
implementation of the management scheme or the date of development commencing, a further
site survey must be undertaken and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in
order to ensure that the agreed scheme is still applicable.
16. Prior to the commencement of development an air quality assessment shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority The report shall predict the effect of the
development on air quality and risk of public exposure against the air quality objectives set out
in the National Air Quality Strategy (Air Quality Regulations 2000) for the following
pollutants: Nitrogen Dioxide and PM10. Details of measures to be put in place or actions taken
to reduce the impact of the development on air quality shall be included in the report. The
development shall only take place in accordance with the findings of the air quality assessment
report as approved by the Local Planning Authority.
17. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, the applicant shall submit for
written approval an assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. This assessment
should follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road
network including Trinity Way, and any other local noise sources including Industrial and
Commercial Uses both in the immediate vicinity of the site and those along Trinity Way, Mary
Street and Great Ducie Street which are deemed significant on the site. The assessment shall
also identify noise sources created within the scope of the development.
The assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures which may be determined
appropriate to reduce the impact of noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the
requirements of BS8233 for internal noise levels. Consideration shall also be given to
achieving adequate Summer Cooling and Rapid Ventilation. If deemed necessary, alternative
ventilation measures shall be identified and incorporated into the noise assessment report.
Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be implemented and thereafter
retained.
18. Noise from fixed plant and machinery on the site (LAeq,t) including shall not exceed the
background level (LA90,t) at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive properties at any time.
19. Details of the fume extraction system serving the hotel and any other A3/A4/A5 uses shall be
designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to local premises and shall be
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development taking place.
The approved system shall be installed and shall be used at all times when the premises are
used for cooking or preparing foods. The system shall be maintained and serviced in
accordance with manufacturers recommendations
20. The lighting provided in the scheme shall be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
residential accommodation in close proximity. Guidance can be obtained from the Institute of
Lighting Engineers which relates to these matters (Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light
Pollution). I would recommend the lighting be designed to provide a standard maintained
illumination (LUX) of between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower level being the preferable one.
21. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a Dust
Management Plan for the written approval of the Local Planning Act. The Dust Management
Plan shall identify all areas of the site and site operations where dust may be generated and
further identify control methods to ensure that dust does not travel beyond the site boundary.
Once in place, all identified measures shall be implemented and maintained at all times.
Should any equipment used to control dust fail, the site shall cease all material handling
operations immediately until the dust control equipment has been repaired or replaced.
22. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a Noise
Management Plan for the written approval of the LPA. The Noise Management Plan shall
identify all areas of the site and site operations where Noise from construction works may be
generated and further identify control methods to ensure that Noise does not create problems to
nearby noise sensitive properties. Once in place, all identified measures shall be implemented
and maintained at all times. Should any equipment used to control noise fail, the site shall
cease all construction operations within 1 hour until the noise control equipment has been
repaired or replaced.
23. Any trees or buildings on the site which are to be felled/removed and which have the potential
to provide bat roosts shall be surveyed by a competent specialist one month prior to their
felling/removal. If the presence of bats is recorded mitigation measures shall be first submitted
to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The felling/removal of such
trees/buildings shall be carried out in accordance with the approved mitigation measures.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with the Chapel Street Planning Obligations Development
Control Policy Note and policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP 1995 and H8
of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
4. To ensure that proper accessibility by public transport, cycling and walking is provided in
accordance with policy A1 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development
Plan.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
6. Standard Reason R041A Access for people with disabilities
7. Reason: To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding and to
safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. To prevent pollution of the River Irwell in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
9. To prevent pollution of the River Irwell in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
10. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
12. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
13. To ensure compliance with policies EC8 of Regional Spatial Strategy and Policy S2B of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan - Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
14. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
15. To prevent the spread of invasive Japanese knotweed and Giant Hogweed in accordance with
policy EN20 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
16. To minimise the effect on local air quality in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
17. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
18. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
19. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
20. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
21. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
22. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
23. To ensure the ecological interest on the site is maintained in accordance with policies EN7C,
EN7D and EN7E of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan - Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Plan.
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
2. The Environment Agency would seek any new landscaping scheme adjacent to the River
Irwell wildlife corridor, be largely based on native, and preferably local provenanced plant
species, improves existing riparian habitat, whilst creating new and safe riverside access. Any
planting scheme should avoid the mistakes of the past in this location, where views of the river
are limited due to inappropriate and dense planting that has lacked routine conservation
maintenance and provides an unsafe environment for pedestrians. Also any existing planting
retained as part of the development should be sympathetically managed i.e. scrub woodland
thinned, hedges laid etc.
3. The applicants attention is drawn to the contents of the letter from United Utilities.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Bylaws, the prior
written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures
in, under, over or within 8 meters of the top of the bank of the main River Irwell.
Details of any proposed new surface water outfalls, which should be constructed entirely
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
within the bank profile, should be approved by the Environment Agency in accordance with
the water Resources Act 1991.
All downspouts should be sealed directly into the ground ensuring that the only open grids
present around each dwelling are connected to the foul sewage systems.
No rainwater contaminated with silt/soil from disturbed ground during construction, must
drain to the surface water sewer or watercourse without sufficient settlement.
Surface water from yard storage areas, vehicle washing areas, loading and unloading areas and
any other areas likely to be contaminated by spillage should be connected to the foul sewer.
The formal consent of United Utilities will be required. In the absence of a sewerage system,
such drainage must go to a tank(s) with no discharge to watercourse.
9. If any commercial or retail uses incorporate A3/4/5 uses and they operate on site beyond 23.00
they may fall under requirements of the new licensing regime. The applicant is advised to
contact the Licensing Team at the earliest opportunity to clarify what licences or special
conditions may apply under the Licensing Act. Contact the Licensing Team on 0161 793 3114
for further advice.
10. For Commercial and Retail uses within the site, the applicant should contact the Commercial
Services team for discussions and advice on the layout, design and procedures undertaken by
the proposed use prior to the commencement of businesses. Commercial Services can provide
such advice concerning matters relating to the Food Safety Act and the Health & Safety at
Work etc Act. For further advice please contact 0161 737 0551.
11. The reference period 't' is taken as being a 1 hour period between 07.00 and 23.00 hours
inclusive and as 5 minutes at any time outside of those hours.
12. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00 inclusive
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00 inclusive
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
13. Before undertaking an air quality assessment, it is advisable that datasets and methodologies to
be used are agreed with Salford City Council Environmental Protection Service. The Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) method will be acceptable for this study. Where the
DMRB assessment predicts exceedence of a National Air Quality Objective a more detailed
assessment will be required.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The air quality assessment should address the opening year of the development and years 2010
and 2020 with and without the development. Pollutant concentrations should be estimated at
locations where the Air Quality Strategy objectives apply. These are locations where members
of the public will be exposed to the pollution over the appropriate timescales of the objective.
The report detailing the results of the air quality assessment should provide a transparent
account of the modelling undertaken, assumptions made and validation of results.
14. With regard to condition 22 noisy operations including powerfloating shall be notified to the
local authority and with at least 2 weeks prior to the commencement of such works. Such
activities shall occur between the permitted construction site working hours only unless agreed
previously with the Local Planning Authority in advance. Any such operations shall be
accompanied by mitigation measures to minimise the impact of noise on nearby noise sensitive
properties. Any such operations shall be notified to nearby local residents along with
emergency contact numbers should noise mitigation measures fail.
APPLICATION No:
05/51524/OUT
APPLICANT:
Urban Splash
LOCATION:
Land To The East And North Of Springfield Lane Adjacent To
The River Irwell Salford
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the erection of 540 flats and 4029 sq.m of
retail/commercial space (Option 1)
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site comprises 2.6 hectares and is currently vacant having been previously used primarily for
industry and storage uses. The site has been vacant and awaiting redevelopment for some ten
years.
The land lies within the Greengate North area of Central Salford to the north of Trinity Way and
bounding onto the River Irwell as far as Bridgewater Street. The site includes the King William VI
Public House and former industrial land on both sides of Springfield Lane. The main interest in the
land lies with the Council although there are two other owning interests.
The application is a red line outline application with all matters reserved. The applicant has
however submitted illustrative information to demonstrate that the development described can be
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
accommodated on the site, together with a supporting planning statement. The developer is
considering 3 options for the development of this site and has submitted 3 separate outline
applications for each of the options. Each application proposes a different mix and amount of
development but in general terms the development in all 3 options can be described as a high
density, residential led, mixed development in six 9/10 storey building blocks. The illustrative
material has been developed from the original design competition on this site.
The scheme may allow for the building of a footbridge across to development in Manchester City
Centre and in these circumstances the extent of non commercial uses can be increased but this is
subject to funding and commercial appraisal and is not at this stage a commitment. It has been
established however that there is a commitment to providing a new riverside walkway along the
Irwell.
The Traffic Engineering Report submitted with the application establishes that access to the
application site and the development proposed, can be provided via Springfield Lane. The report
goes on to say that the impact on the junction at Springfield lane and Trinity Way is not significant
and would not require any material changes to the junction or its signalling. The applicant has
indicated that car parking could be provided at below ground level across the whole site and it has
been demonstrated that 814 parking spaces can be provided.
This application concerns Option 1. This represents the scheme with a significant amount of
mostly residential content with 540 flats. Each scheme includes retail/commercial uses and in this
case the floorspace amounts to 4029 sq m.
SITE HISTORY
02/44925/DEEM3 – Outline consent for 90 houses and offices (land between Springfield Lane and
the River Irwell). Approved 12.12.2002.
02/44926/DEEM3 – Outline consent for 60 houses and offices (land between Springfield Lane and
the River Irwell). Approved 01.02.2001.
03/46053/OUT – Outline for residential (small site at Reservoir Street and Dean Road). Approved
06/08/2003.
03/46054/OUT – Outline for residential (site if King William VI PH). Approved 06/08/2003.
04/48283/FUL – Change of use to temporary car park. Approved 16/07/2004.
04/49526/OUT - Outline for 178 apartments and 515sq m. offices. (Land opposite the application
site to west of Springfield Lane) Approved 06/01/2005
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services - The site is adjacent to an extremely busy inner ring road
serving Manchester and Salford. The proximity of this road will create certain issues for any future
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
occupiers of the site. Primarily this relates to noise and also air quality resulting from both the size
and scale of the development as well as the surrounding site uses.
The air quality aspect will require that an assessment is made to determine the impact of such a
development on the surrounding area, recommending any necessary mitigation measures or other
controls which can attempt to reduce the exposure and impact of the site. A condition will be
recommended which details more specific matters relating to this aspect of the development.
Noise from surrounding site uses will also have to be considered carefully. There are a number of
commercial/retail type outlets on the opposite side of the river at this point. There is a possibility
that noise or other potential nuisances will exist and become apparent to the site on first
occupation. Assessments will have to include such surrounding uses and necessary mitigation
measures for all acoustic matters will have to be developed. Ventilation will also figure highly in
this equation, if mitigation measures are provided to protect against noise ingress, opening
windows will therefore enhance the effects of any noise problems to future occupiers. It may be
necessary to incorporate alternative ventilation to prevent the necessity of opening windows in a
potentially noisy area. A full acoustic assessment will be necessary for the site to identify any areas
which require mitigation measures and to further specify the necessary measures to protect the
amenity of the future site occupiers.
The site is also brownfield, former buildings on the site and various previous uses including the
uprating of the site due to the proximity of the River Irwell will demand that a full assessment into
contaminated land and possible landfill gas will be required.
The combination of Flats and Retail/Commercial uses on one site may also create possible
conflicts between the future site users. Special attention will have to be paid to the internal layout
of the buildings to ensure that compatible uses are located together, separation distances and
careful arrangement of rooms between individual uses will have to be considered. This will need to
be considered as part of any acoustic assessment as well as part of other matters detailed below.
Any A3, 4 or 5 uses incorporated into the design will have to be considered and necessary
mitigation measures included in any full planning submissions. Noise from such uses will also
require assessment to ensure that the amenity of future occupiers of the site is adequately against
any such deterioration by nature of the mixed use site. It is likely that some form of odour
abatement plants to be installed. Due to the height of the building, it is likely that any such plants
will have to be abatement/neutralisation plants as opposed to a simple dispersion stack which
clears the height of the building.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments received.
Manchester and High Peak Area Footpaths Society – No comments received.
Greater Manchester Pedestrians association – No comments received
Ramblers Association – No comments received.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Open Spaces Society – No comments received
Manchester City Council – No comments received
Environment Agency –The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment and subject to
appropriate conditions there are no objections in principle.
United Utilities – No objections in principle subject to details and appropriate conditions.
GMPTE – Recommends that the applicant makes a contribution to improvements in the pedestrian
environment and that a Travel plan be requested.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – No objections in principle but has some concerns
in respect of: 1. Need to ensure that quality is compromised by possible over development.
2. The riverside walkway should be a requirement of permission.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 20th October 2005
A site notice was displayed on 13th October 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 11 (o), 17, 2-16(e), 18-28 (e) Georgette Drive.
Greengate Community Centre,
Units 5-11 Irwell House
2-5, 11-16, 21-26, 31-36, 41-46, 51-56, 61-66, 71-76, 81-86, 91-96, 102-106, 111-116,
121-126, 131-136, 141-146, Grey Friar Court
Trident Manufacturing, 89,93, Greengate Street
5, 6, Irwell House, K and T Coatings, Mobility Components, Wilson Hudson, East Phillip
Street
David Bentley, Dunlop Greengate Polymers, Greengate
125 Greengate West
17, The Eagle Inn Collier Street
1-4, 11-16, 21-26, 31-36, 41-46, 51-56, 61-66, 71-76, 81-86, 91-96, 101-106, 111-116,
121-126, 131-136, 141-146, 151-156 Newbank Tower
1-12 Twillbrook Drive
1-17 Poplin Drive
1-32 Evans Street
10- 66(e) Bridgewater Street
15-23(o) Anaconda Drive
Units 2,3,11,12 Springfield Business Centre
Renault Manchester, Trinity Way
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity to date.
One writer from Evans Street welcomes development but suggests the number of flats is rather
high. In detail the following points are made: Pedestrian facility required at the traffic lights at Springfield lane/Trinity Way
Insufficient car parking
Loss of scrub land may affect run off into the river
Tree planting needed
Continued traffic management to prevent Springfield Road being used as a short cut.
The second writer, also from Evans Street, makes the following points: a) Replacement landscaping should be of native species to support local wildlife.
b) The area is used a common area and that the proposal to make all the land private with no
community access is unacceptable.
c) 10 storey buildings are too high and would overlook existing properties. Such “high rise”
development will set a precedent for other landowners with residential aspirations.
d) The traffic assessment is considered too optimistic, highway improvements will be
required and parking is inadequate.
The third writer is an architect in practice in Salford considers that the site offers a great
opportunity to bring people to the River Irwell and to improve access along the waterfront. In
detail the following points are made: e) Loss of trees.
f) The development is too high.
g) The scheme is poorly designed in outline.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policy SD1 seeks to focus development and urban renaissance resources, particularly in the
regional pole of Manchester and Salford. The site is located within the area identified as a regional
priority.
Policies DP1 and UR4 encourages the re-use of land and buildings.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
EC13/9 – sites suitable for industrial and warehousing development.
EN15 – Environmental Improvement Corridor
Other policies:
CS2 – Central Salford Greengate North
Spatial Framework – Central Salford will be the major focus for regeneration and investment.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
EC3- re-use of sites and premises.
H10 - Affordable housing
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
ST2 – Housing Supply
ST3 - Employment Supply
ST7 - Mixed Use development
ST11 – Location of new Development
ST12 – Development Density
A1- Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
H1 - Provision of New Housing Development
H4 – Affordable Housing
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES6 – Waterside Development
DEV5 – Planning Conditions and Obligations
E5 – Development within established Employment Areas.
THE INSPECTORS REPORT
ST2 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
ST3 – recommends minor amendments only.
ST7 – no modifications
ST11 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
ST12 – no modifications
A1 – recommends minor amendments only.
H1 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
H4 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
DES1 – recommends minor amendments only.
DES6 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
DEV5 – recommends minor amendments only
E5 – recommends minor amendments only.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The location of this application site and its development for a mixed use scheme is entirely
consistent with the urban renaissance of our cities. The re-use of sites in our inner cities is essential
to not only achieving sustainable development but also to bring back confidence and improve the
environment (physically, economically and socially) for local communities.
As an outline application with all matters reserved the issues to be addressed relate to: 8. Compliance with policy guidance.
9. The principle of the land uses proposed.
10. The scale and density of development proposed.
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
This report and recommendation does not concern itself with design issues or other matters, which
are reserved.
Compliance with policy guidance.
The development of this application site is entirely consistent with established strategic and spatial
policies, having regard to the both the uses proposed and the site location. In particular policy CS2
promotes the renewal of the area through a number of measures that include “the redevelopment of
vacant land between Trinity Way and the River Irwell for a mixture of new housing, industry and
non-retail commercial uses” and “the improvement of pedestrian links to and along the River
Irwell frontage”.
The existing industrial buildings are not worthy of retention and represent outmoded forms of
industrial buildings which are no longer in demand or economically viable. Whilst not retaining
the existing industrial buildings in the area the application is generally consistent with Policy CS2.
Policy EC13/9 of the Unitary Development Plan allocates part of the site for industrial and
warehousing development and this allocation was based on the adjoining land uses and the fact
that the site is in an area of high unemployment. However the relocation of Cromtech Engineering
has enabled the creation of a larger site (the planning application site) which now adjoins
residential areas and allows for a range of other uses to be considered. The inclusion within the
application of retail/commercial uses will allow for jobs to be created thus addressing employment
issues whilst allowing a form of development which is sympathetic to the neighbouring residential
properties. It is therefore considered that the proposals do not conflict with policy EC13/9,
although the emphasis has changed. This change of emphasis is supported by Regional strategies
and policy CS2 of the Unitary Development Plan.
The scheme also indicates compliance with policy DES6 by providing significant public realm
spaces and access in association with the River Irwell.
The applicant has stated that the site lies in an area with public and Registered Social Landlords
and that the introduction of private sector housing is needed to broaden the mix and range of
dwellings. On this basis it is argued that there is no requirement for affordable housing under
policies H10 and H4. Until such time that the Council have adopted a Supplementary Planning
Document the issue of affordable housing is a matter of negotiation rather than a policy based
requirement. The applicant is in discussion about this matter with both the Council and a
Registered Social Landlord.
The Council has a current policy of securing contributions to support the Chapel Street
Regeneration Strategy. The applicant has made no reference to the making of a financial
contribution in accordance with the policy in the supporting statement. This is considered to be a
serious omission and it is proposed that a condition be imposed requiring compliance with the
current policy.
Other detailed policies in respect of design and layout will be considered at reserved matters stage.
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The principle of the land uses proposed:
The Planning history indicates that over the past 3 years what was primarily an employment area
has become accepted as a suitable location for housing opportunities. The older industrial uses
were closely adjoined by residential uses and their redevelopment, at least in part, for residential
purposes is considered to be appropriate and consistent with improving the environment for
existing communities
The site lies within the Manchester and Salford Pathfinder and the residential component to this
scheme will help to create sustainable communities. The residential elements of the proposal are
therefore considered appropriate, particularly in the context of a mixed use scheme.
The applicant refers to a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroomed accommodation, some with large gardens.
Such a mix is to be welcomed but the precise form of development will only be resolved at the
detailed stage of the planning process.
The policies in the Plans concerning employment land and premises have also been developed in
the Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan to reflect a more realistic approach to both the
re-use of old dilapidated industrial uses and the creation of new and relevant working
environments. The application includes 2437 sq m. of retail/commercial floorspace which will
provide for modern employment opportunities consistent with employment polices of the Unitary
Development Plan.
There is a clear emphasis on the residential component in this application, (the supporting
statement confirms that the commercial uses would be confined to a single block of development
fronting Trinity Way). Whilst this option provides a limited “mix” of land uses the site needs to be
considered in the context of the Regional Centre where there is an established and developing mix
of land uses. The site immediately adjoins the Regional Centre (the boundary lies along Trinity
Way) and hence may be regarded as an extension of the Regional Centre in terms of both the site
density and the mix of land uses. Whilst the application site does have an emphasis on residential
development it is very much associated with the developing mix of land uses within the Regional
Centre.
The scale and density of development proposed:
The scale of development is undoubtedly high and in terms of the residential elements equates to
over 215 dwellings per hectare. The only practicable way to achieve this density is by constructing
a high-rise built form. The indicative proposals show that the buildings will be between 8 and 10
storeys high. The applicant has also indicated that with this option much of the ground floor
accommodation will be residential with private open space. The density proposed is again
consistent with strategic policies for this part of the urban core and in particular those associated
with the Regional Centre but the issue remains as to how this will impact on local residents and
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
whether the development can meet adequate design standards to produce a high quality
development.
In terms of the local communities the applicant has met with residents and confirmed a
commitment to work with the residents to overcome their specific concerns (as outlined by the two
representations referred to above). The Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company has raised
the issue of whether the quality of development will be compromised by the scale of the
development.
Answers to these questions cannot be given at this stage of the process as all matters are reserved.
An assessment of the quality of the development and the impact of the designs on the local
community will be an issue for future applications. The density alone is not necessarily a cause for
concern unless the high-rise option is not acceptable in principle. Based on the indicative layouts
and the indicative height of development, I am satisfied that the amount of development is not
prejudicial to the delivery of an acceptable layout and appropriate space standards, and the
achievement of a good quality development.
The outline transport assessment has indicated that the existing highway infrastructure is capable
of accommodating development without significant physical alterations. The site is also well
located in respect of public transport routes and the rail network.
The issue of specific details required to facilitate development are not for consideration at this
stage. These details need to be the subject of further study and a more detailed analysis but at this
stage I have no objections to the principles of the development in the context of traffic and
transportation.
The request from the GMPTE for a Travel Plan is considered to be a reasonable one in that having
regard to the scale of development it would be sensible to aim to towards minimising use of the car
and maximising access to public transport and cycling and pedestrian facilities.
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied that the redevelopment of this site for a mixed use development incorporating
residential and retail/commercial uses is acceptable and consistent with the applicable strategic
and spatial policies. The scale of the development and the high rise building solution that will be
required is consistent with other development in Central Salford and is appropriate to this location.
The development and the proposed details would make a positive contribution to the area and
would result in the redevelopment of a vacant and unused land and buildings.
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 to secure the
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
provision of environmental improvements, open space and recreation space in compliance with the
Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy and Policies H6 and H11, H8 and SPG7.
Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition B01B New reserved matters
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
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
commuted sums as required by the Chapel Street Planning Obligations Development Control
Policy Note and 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 environmental improvements, open space and recreation space
purposes.
4. Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development 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
5. Prior to submission of any reserved matters a full and detailed Transportation Assessment shall
be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any amendments or additions to
the existing infrastructure required by the assessment shall be implemented prior to the first
occupation of any development.
6. That before development commences the detailed design of the riverside walkway and public
realm space shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme
as approved shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any dwelling and shall be
maintained at all times thereafter.
7. No development shall commence until details of the existing and proposed levels have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be constructed
and completed in accordance with the approved levels.
8. Any facilities for the storage of chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded
by impervious bund walls, details of which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority
for approval. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least
equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or 25% of the total combined capacity of the
interconnected tanks whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight
glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with
no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be
located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank
overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.
9. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all
surface water drainage from the River Irwell shall be passed through an oil interceptor
designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with, the site being drained.
Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor
10. No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority. Such a scheme
shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans
11. No development shall commence unless and until the necessary consents have been obtained
for the closure of any rights of way.
12. 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 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 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.
13. No individual A1 or D2 unit located within the development shall have a gross floorspace of
more than 700sq.m.
14. 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
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
approved is first brought into use. Such works shall be completed before first use and shall be
retained at all times thereafter
15. Prior to commencement of development, full details of a scheme for the management,
destruction and/or disposal of Japanese knotweed and Giant Hogweed shall be carried out by
the developer, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This
scheme shall include a timetable for implementation. Should a delay of more than one year
occur between the date of approval of the management scheme and either the date of
implementation of the management scheme or the date of development commencing, a further
site survey must be undertaken and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in
order to ensure that the agreed scheme is still applicable
16. Prior to the commencement of development an air quality assessment shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority The report shall predict the effect of the
development on air quality and risk of public exposure against the air quality objectives set out
in the National Air Quality Strategy (Air Quality Regulations 2000) for the following
pollutants: Nitrogen Dioxide and PM10. Details of measures to be put in place or actions taken
to reduce the impact of the development on air quality shall be included in the report. The
development shall only take place in accordance with the findings of the air quality assessment
report as approved by the Local Planning Authority
17. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, the applicant shall submit for
written approval an assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. This assessment
should follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road
network including Trinity Way, and any other local noise sources including Industrial and
Commercial Uses both in the immediate vicinity of the site and those along Trinity Way, Mary
Street and Great Ducie Street which are deemed significant on the site. The assessment shall
also identify noise sources created within the scope of the development.
The assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures which may be determined
appropriate to reduce the impact of noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the
requirements of BS8233 for internal noise levels. Consideration shall also be given to
achieving adequate Summer Cooling and Rapid Ventilation. If deemed necessary, alternative
ventilation measures shall be identified and incorporated into the noise assessment report.
Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be implemented and thereafter
retained.
18. Noise from fixed plant and machinery on the site (LAeq,t) including shall not exceed the
background level (LA90,t) at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive properties at any time.
19. Details of the fume extraction system serving the hotel and any other A3/A4/A5 uses shall be
designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to local premises and shall be
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development taking place.
The approved system shall be installed and shall be used at all times when the premises are
used for cooking or preparing foods. The system shall be maintained and serviced in
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
accordance with manufacturers recommendations
20. The lighting provided in the scheme shall be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to
residential accommodation in close proximity. Guidance can be obtained from the Institute of
Lighting Engineers which relates to these matters (Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light
Pollution). I would recommend the lighting be designed to provide a standard maintained
illumination (LUX) of between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower level being the preferable one.
21. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a Dust
Management Plan for the written approval of the Local Planning Act. The Dust Management
Plan shall identify all areas of the site and site operations where dust may be generated and
further identify control methods to ensure that dust does not travel beyond the site boundary.
Once in place, all identified measures shall be implemented and maintained at all times.
Should any equipment used to control dust fail, the site shall cease all material handling
operations immediately until the dust control equipment has been repaired or replaced
22. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a Noise
Management Plan for the written approval of the LPA. The Noise Management Plan shall
identify all areas of the site and site operations where Noise from construction works may be
generated and further identify control methods to ensure that Noise does not create problems to
nearby noise sensitive properties. Once in place, all identified measures shall be implemented
and maintained at all times. Should any equipment used to control noise fail, the site shall
cease all construction operations within 1 hour until the noise control equipment has been
repaired or replaced.
23. Any trees or buildings on the site which are to be felled/removed and which have the potential
to provide bat roosts shall be surveyed by a competent specialist one month prior to their
felling/removal. If the presence of bats is recorded mitigation measures shall be first submitted
to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The felling/removal of such
trees/buildings shall be carried out in accordance with the approved mitigation measures.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with the Chapel Street Planning Obligations Development
Control Policy Note and policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP 1995 and H8
of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
4. To ensure that proper accessibility by public transport, cycling and walking is provided in
accordance with policy A1 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development
Plan
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
5. Standard Reason R016A Safety of traffic
6. Standard Reason R041A Access for people with disabilities
7. Reason: To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding and to
safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
8. To prevent pollution of the River Irwell in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
9. To prevent pollution of the River Irwell in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
10. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
12. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
13. To ensure compliance with policies EC8 of Regional Spatial Strategy and Policy S2B of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan - Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
14. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
15. To prevent the spread of invasive Japanese knotweed and Giant Hogweed in accordance with
policy EN20 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
16. To minimise the effect on local air quality in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
17. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
18. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
19. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
20. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
21. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
22. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
23. To ensure the ecological interest on the site is maintained in accordance with policies EN7C,
EN7D and EN7E of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan - Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Plan.
APPLICATION No:
05/51525/OUT
APPLICANT:
Urban Splash
LOCATION:
Land To The East And North Of Springfield Lane Adjacent To
The River Irwell Salford
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the erection of 555 flats and 2437sq.m of
retail/commercial space (Option 2)
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site comprises 2.6 hectares and is currently vacant having been previously used primarily for
industry and storage uses. The site has been vacant and awaiting redevelopment for some ten
years.
The land lies within the Greengate North area of Central Salford to the north of Trinity Way and
bounding onto the River Irwell as far as Bridgewater Street. The site includes the King William VI
public house and former industrial land on both sides of Springfield Lane. The main interest in the
land lies with the Council although there are two other owning interests.
The application is a red line outline application with all matters reserved. The applicant has
however submitted illustrative information to demonstrate that the development described can be
accommodated on the site, together with a supporting planning statement. The developer is
considering 3 options for the development of this site and has submitted 3 separate outline
applications for each of the options. Each application proposes a different mix and amount of
development but in general terms the development in all 3 options can be described as a high
density, residential led, mixed development in six 9/10 storey building blocks. The illustrative
material has been developed from the original design competition on this site.
The scheme may allow for the building of a footbridge across to development in Manchester City
Centre and in these circumstances the extent of non commercial uses can be increased but this is
subject to funding and commercial appraisal and is not at this stage a commitment. It has been
established however that there is a commitment to providing a new riverside walkway along the
Irwell.
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The Traffic Engineering Report submitted with the application establishes that access to the
application site and the development proposed, can be provided via Springfield Lane. The report
goes on to say that the impact on the junction at Springfield lane and Trinity Way is not significant
and would not require any material changes to the junction or its signalling. The applicant has
indicated that car parking could be provided at below ground level across the whole site and it has
been demonstrated that 814 parking spaces can be provided.
This application concerns Option 2. This represents the scheme with the most residential content
with 555 flats. Each scheme includes retail/commercial uses and in this case the floorspace
amounts to 2437 sq m.
SITE HISTORY
02/44925/DEEM3 – Outline consent for 90 houses and offices (land between Springfield Lane and
the River Irwell). Approved 12.12.2002.
02/44926/DEEM3 – Outline consent for 60 houses and offices (land between Springfield Lane and
the River Irwell). Approved 01.02.2001.
03/46053/OUT – Outline for residential (small site at Reservoir Street and Dean Road). Approved
06/08/2003.
03/46054/OUT – Outline for residential (site if King William VI PH). Approved 06/08/2003.
04/48283/FULL – Change of use to temporary car park. Approved 16/07/2004.
04/49526/OUT - Outline for 178 apartments and 515sq m. offices. (Land opposite the application
site to the west of Springfield Lane) Approved 06/01/2005.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services - The site is adjacent to an extremely busy inner ring road
serving Manchester and Salford. The proximity of this road will create certain issues for any future
occupiers of the site. Primarily this relates to noise and also air quality resulting from both the size
and scale of the development as well as the surrounding site uses.
The air quality aspect will require that an assessment is made to determine the impact of such a
development on the surrounding area, recommending any necessary mitigation measures or other
controls which can attempt to reduce the exposure and impact of the site. A condition will be
recommended which details more specific matters relating to this aspect of the development.
Noise from surrounding site uses will also have to be considered carefully. There are a number of
commercial/retail type outlets on the opposite side of the river at this point. There is a possibility
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
that noise or other potential nuisances will exist and become apparent to the site on first
occupation. Assessments will have to include such surrounding uses and necessary mitigation
measures for all acoustic matters will have to be developed. Ventilation will also figure highly in
this equation, if mitigation measures are provided to protect against noise ingress, opening
windows will therefore enhance the effects of any noise problems to future occupiers. It may be
necessary to incorporate alternative ventilation to prevent the necessity of opening windows in a
potentially noisy area. A full acoustic assessment will be necessary for the site to identify any areas
which require mitigation measures and to further specify the necessary measures to protect the
amenity of the future site occupiers.
The site is also brownfield, former buildings on the site and various previous uses including the
uprating of the site due to the proximity of the River Irwell will demand that a full assessment into
contaminated land and possible landfill gas will be required.
The combination of Flats and Retail/Commercial/hotel uses on one site may also create possible
conflicts between the future site users. Special attention will have to be paid to the internal layout
of the buildings to ensure that compatible uses are located together, separation distances and
careful arrangement of rooms between individual uses will have to be considered. This will need to
be considered as part of any acoustic assessment as well as part of other matters detailed below.
Any A3, 4 or 5 uses incorporated into the design will have to be considered and necessary
mitigation measures included in any full planning submissions. Noise from such uses will also
require assessment to ensure that the amenity of future occupiers of the site is adequately against
any such deterioration by nature of the mixed use site. It is likely that some form of odour
abatement plants to be installed. Due to the height of the building, it is likely that any such plants
will have to be abatement/neutralisation plants as opposed to a simple dispersion stack which
clears the height of the building.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments received.
Manchester and High Peak Area Footpaths Society – No comments received.
Greater Manchester Pedestrians association – No comments received
Ramblers Association – No comments received.
Open Spaces Society – No comments received
Manchester City Council – No comments received.
Environment Agency –The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment and subject to
appropriate conditions there are no objections in principle.
United Utilities – No objections in principle subject to details and appropriate conditions.
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
GMPTE – Recommends that the applicant makes a contribution to improvements in the pedestrian
environment and that a Travel plan be requested.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – No objections in principle but has some concerns
in respect of: Need to ensure that quality is compromised by possible over development.
The riverside walkway should be a requirement of permission.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 20th October 2005
A site notice was displayed on 13th October 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 11 (o), 17, 2-16(e), 18-28 (e) Georgette Drive.
Greengate Community Centre,
Units 5-11 Irwell House
2-5, 11-16, 21-26, 31-36, 41-46, 51-56, 61-66, 71-76, 81-86, 91-96, 102-106, 111-116,
121-126, 131-136, 141-146, Grey Friar Court
Trident Manufacturing, 89,93, Greengate Street
5, 6, Irwell House, K and T Coatings, Mobility Components, Wilson Hudson, East Phillip
Street
David Bentley, Dunlop Greengate Polymers, Greengate
125 Greengate West
17, The Eagle Inn Collier Street
1-4, 11-16, 21-26, 31-36, 41-46, 51-56, 61-66, 71-76, 81-86, 91-96, 101-106, 111-116,
121-126, 131-136, 141-146, 151-156 Newbank Tower
1-12 Twillbrook Drive
1-17 Poplin Drive
1-32 Evans Street
10- 66(e) Bridgewater Street
15-23(o) Anaconda Drive
Units 2,3,11,12 Springfield Business Centre
Renault Manchester, Trinity Way
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity to date.
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
One writer from Evans Street welcomes development but suggests the number of flats is rather
high. In detail the following points are made: Pedestrian facility required at the traffic lights at Springfield lane/Trinity Way
Insufficient car parking
Loss of scrub land may affect run off into the river
Tree planting needed
Continued traffic management to prevent Springfield Road being used as a short cut.
The second writer, also from Evans Street, makes the following points:  Replacement landscaping should be of native species to support local wildlife.
 The area is used a common area and that the proposal to make all the land private with
no community access is unacceptable.
 10 storey buildings are too high and would overlook existing properties. Such “high
rise” development will set a precedent for other landowners with residential
aspirations.
 The traffic assessment is considered too optimistic, highway improvements will be
required and parking is inadequate.
The third writer is an architect in practice in Salford considers that the site offers a great
opportunity to bring people to the River Irwell and to improve access along the waterfront. In
detail the following points are made:  Loss of trees.
 The development is too high.
 The scheme is poorly designed in outline.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policy SD1 seeks to focus development and urban renaissance resources, particularly in the
regional pole of Manchester and Salford. The site is located within the area identified as a regional
priority.
Policies DP1 and UR4 encourages the re-use of land and buildings.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
EC13/9 – sites suitable for industrial and warehousing development.
EN15 – Environmental Improvement Corridor
Other policies:
CS2 – Central Salford Greengate North
Spatial Framework – Central Salford will be the major focus for regeneration and investment.
EC3- re-use of sites and premises.
H10 - Affordable housing
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
ST2 – Housing Supply
ST3 - Employment Supply
ST7 - Mixed Use development
ST11 – Location of new Development
ST12 – Development Density
A1- Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
H1 - Provision of New Housing Development
H4 – Affordable Housing
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES6 – Waterside Development
DEV5 – Planning Conditions and Obligations
E5 – Development within established Employment Areas.
THE INSPECTORS REPORT
ST2 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
ST3 – recommends minor amendments only.
ST7 – no modifications
ST11 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
ST12 – no modifications
A1 – recommends minor amendments only.
H1 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
H4 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
DES1 – recommends minor amendments only.
DES6 – recommends a number of amendments but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
DEV5 – recommends minor amendments only
E5 – recommends minor amendments only.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The location of this application site and its development for a mixed use scheme is entirely
consistent with the urban renaissance of our cities. The re-use of sites in our inner cities is essential
to not only achieving sustainable development but also to bring back confidence and improve the
environment (physically, economically and socially) for local communities.
As an outline application with all matters reserved the issues to be addressed relate to: Compliance with policy guidance.
The principle of the land uses proposed.
The scale and density of development proposed.
This report and recommendation does not concern itself with design issues or other matters, which
are reserved.
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Compliance with policy guidance.
The development of this application site is entirely consistent with established strategic and spatial
policies, having regard to the both the uses proposed and the site location. In particular policy CS2
promotes the renewal of the area through a number of measures that include “the redevelopment of
vacant land between Trinity Way and the River Irwell for a mixture new housing, industry and
non-retail commercial uses” and “the improvement of pedestrian links to and along the River
Irwell frontage”.
The existing industrial buildings are not worthy of retention and represent outmoded forms of
industrial buildings which are no longer in demand or economically viable. Whilst not retaining
the existing industrial buildings in the area the application is generally consistent with Policy CS2.
Policy EC13/9 of the Unitary Development Plan allocates part of the site for industrial and
warehousing development and this allocation was based on the adjoining land uses and the fact
that the site is in an area of high unemployment. However the relocation of Cromtech Engineering
has enabled the creation of a larger site (the planning application site) which now adjoins
residential areas and allows for a range of other uses to be considered. The inclusion within the
application of retail/commercial uses will allow for jobs to be created thus addressing employment
issues whilst allowing a form of development which is sympathetic to the neighbouring residential
properties. It is therefore considered that the proposals do not conflict with policy EC13/9,
although the emphasis has changed. This change of emphasis is supported by Regional strategies
and policy CS2 of the Unitary Development Plan.
The scheme also indicates compliance with policy DES6 by providing significant public realm
spaces and access in association with the River Irwell.
The applicant has stated that the site lies in an area with public and Registered Social Landlords
and that the introduction of private sector housing is needed to broaden the mix and range of
dwellings. On this basis it is argued that there is no requirement for affordable housing under
policies H10 and H4. Until such time that the Council have adopted Supplementary Planning
Guidance the issue of affordable housing is a matter of negotiation rather than a policy based
requirement. The applicant is in discussion about this matter with both the Council and a
Registered Social Landlord.
The Council has a current policy of securing contributions to support the Chapel Street
Regeneration Strategy. The applicant has made no reference to the making of a financial
contribution in accordance with the policy in the supporting statement. This is considered to be a
serious omission and it is proposed that a condition be imposed requiring compliance with the
current policy.
Other detailed policies in respect of design and layout will be considered at reserved matters stage.
The principle of the land uses proposed:
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The Planning history indicates that over the past 3 years what was primarily an employment area
has become accepted as a suitable location for housing opportunities. The older industrial uses
were closely adjoined by residential uses and their redevelopment, at least in part, for residential
purposes is considered to be appropriate and consistent with the aim of improving the environment
for existing communities.
The site lies within the Manchester and Salford Pathfinder and the residential component to this
scheme will help to create sustainable communities. The residential elements of the proposal are
therefore considered appropriate, particularly in the context of a mixed use scheme.
The applicant refers to a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroomed accommodation, some with large gardens.
Such a mix is to be welcomed but the precise form of development will only be resolved at the
detailed stage of the planning process.
The policies in the Plans concerning employment land and premises have also been developed in
the Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan to reflect a more realistic approach to both the
re-use of old dilapidated industrial uses and the creation of new and relevant working
environments. The application includes 2437 sq m. of retail/commercial floorspace which will
provide for modern employment opportunities consistent with employment polices of the Unitary
Development Plan.
There is a clear emphasis on the residential component in this application, (the supporting
statement confirms that the commercial uses would be confined to a single block of development
fronting Trinity Way). Whilst this option provides the least “mix” of land uses the site needs to be
considered in the context of the Regional Centre where there is an established and developing mix
of land uses. The site immediately adjoins the Regional Centre (the boundary lies along Trinity
Way) and hence may be regarded as an extension of the Regional Centre in terms of both the site
density and the mix of land uses. Whilst the application site does have an emphasis on residential
development it is very much associated with the developing mix of land uses within the Regional
Centre.
The scale and density of development proposed:
The scale of development is undoubtedly high and in terms of the residential elements equates to
over 215 dwellings per hectare. The only practicable way to achieve this density is by constructing
a high-rise built form. The indicative proposals show that the buildings will be between 8 and 10
storeys high. The applicant has also indicated that with this option much of the ground floor
accommodation will be residential with private open space. The density proposed is again
consistent with strategic policies for this part of the urban core and in particular those associated
with the Regional Centre but the issue remains as to how this will impact on local residents and
whether the development can meet adequate design standards to produce a high quality
development.
In terms of the local communities the applicant has met with residents and confirmed a
commitment to work with the residents to overcome their specific concerns (as outlined by the two
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
representations referred to above). The Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company has raised
the issue of whether the quality of development will be compromised by the scale of the
development.
Answers to these questions cannot be given at this stage of the process as all matters are reserved.
An assessment of the quality of the development and the impact of the designs on the local
community will be an issue for future applications. The density alone is not necessarily a cause for
concern unless the high-rise option is not acceptable in principle. Based on the indicative layouts
and the indicative height of development, I am satisfied that the amount of development is not
prejudicial to the delivery of an acceptable layout and appropriate space standards, and the
achievement of a good quality development.
The outline transport assessment has indicated that the existing highway infrastructure is capable
of accommodating development without significant physical alterations. The site is also well
located in respect of public transport routes and the rail network.
The issue of specific details required to facilitate development are not for consideration at this
stage. These details need to be the subject of further study and a more detailed analysis, to be
required by condition, but at this stage I have no objections to the principles of the development in
the context of traffic and transportation.
The request from the GMPTE for a Travel Plan is considered to be a reasonable one in that having
regard to the scale of development it would be sensible to aim to towards minimising use of the car
and maximising access to public transport and cycling and pedestrian facilities.
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied that the redevelopment of this site for a mixed use development incorporating
residential and retail/commercial uses is acceptable and consistent with the applicable strategic
and spatial policies. The scale of the development and the high rise building solution that will be
required is consistent with other development in Central Salford and is appropriate to this location.
The development and the proposed details would make a positive contribution to the area and
would result in the redevelopment of a vacant and unused land and buildings.
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 to secure the
provision of environmental improvements, open space and recreation space in compliance with the
Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy and Policies H6 and H11, H8 and SPG7.
Subject to the following Conditions
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
1. Standard Condition B01B New reserved matters
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
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
commuted sums as required by the Chapel Street Planning Obligations Development Control
Policy Note and 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 environmental improvements, open space and recreation space
purposes.
4. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4)(a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning
Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that
commuted sums as required by the Chapel Street Planning Obligations Development Control
Policy Note and 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 environmental improvements, open space and recreation space
purposes.
4. Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development 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
5. Prior to submission of any reserved matters a full and detailed Transportation Assessment shall
be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any amendments or additions to
the existing infrastructure required by the assessment shall be implemented prior to the first
occupation of any development.
6. That before development commences the detailed design of the riverside walkway and public
realm space shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme
as approved shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any dwelling and shall be
maintained at all times thereafter.
7. No development shall commence until details of the existing and proposed levels have been
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be constructed
and completed in accordance with the approved levels.
8. Any facilities for the storage of chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded
by impervious bund walls, details of which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority
for approval. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the
capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least
equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank, or 25% of the total combined capacity of the
interconnected tanks whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight
glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with
no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be
located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank
overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.
9. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all
surface water drainage from the River Irwell shall be passed through an oil interceptor
designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with, the site being drained.
Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor
10. No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority. Such a scheme
shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans
11. No development shall commence unless and until the necessary consents have been obtained
for the closure of any rights of way.
12. 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 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 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.
89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
13. No individual A1 or D2 unit located within the development shall have a gross floorspace of
more than 700sq.m.
14. 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
15. Prior to commencement of development, full details of a scheme for the management,
destruction and/or disposal of Japanese knotweed and Giant Hogweed shall be carried out by
the developer, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This
scheme shall include a timetable for implementation. Should a delay of more than one year
occur between the date of approval of the management scheme and either the date of
implementation of the management scheme or the date of development commencing, a further
site survey must be undertaken and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in
order to ensure that the agreed scheme is still applicable
16. Prior to the commencement of development an air quality assessment shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority The report shall predict the effect of the
development on air quality and risk of public exposure against the air quality objectives set out
in the National Air Quality Strategy (Air Quality Regulations 2000) for the following
pollutants: Nitrogen Dioxide and PM10. Details of measures to be put in place or actions taken
to reduce the impact of the development on air quality shall be included in the report. The
development shall only take place in accordance with the findings of the air quality assessment
report as approved by the Local Planning Authority
17. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, the applicant shall submit for
written approval an assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. This assessment
should follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road
network including Trinity Way, and any other local noise sources including Industrial and
Commercial Uses both in the immediate vicinity of the site and those along Trinity Way, Mary
Street and Great Ducie Street which are deemed significant on the site. The assessment shall
also identify noise sources created within the scope of the development.
The assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures which may be determined
appropriate to reduce the impact of noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the
requirements of BS8233 for internal noise levels. Consideration shall also be given to
achieving adequate Summer Cooling and Rapid Ventilation. If deemed necessary, alternative
ventilation measures shall be identified and incorporated into the noise assessment report.
Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be implemented and thereafter
retained.
18. Noise from fixed plant and machinery on the site (LAeq,t) including shall not exceed the
background level (LA90,t) at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive properties at any time.
90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
19. Details of the fume extraction system serving the hotel and any other A3/A4/A5 uses shall be
designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to local premises and shall be
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development taking place.
The approved system shall be installed and shall be used at all times when the premises are
used for cooking or preparing foods. The system shall be maintained and serviced in
accordance with manufacturers recommendations
20. The lighting provided in the scheme shall be erected and directed so as to avoid nuisance to
residential accommodation in close proximity. Guidance can be obtained from the Institute of
Lighting Engineers which relates to these matters (Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light
Pollution). I would recommend the lighting be designed to provide a standard maintained
illumination (LUX) of between 5 and 20 LUX with the lower level being the preferable one.
21. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a Dust
Management Plan for the written approval of the Local Planning Act. The Dust Management
Plan shall identify all areas of the site and site operations where dust may be generated and
further identify control methods to ensure that dust does not travel beyond the site boundary.
Once in place, all identified measures shall be implemented and maintained at all times.
Should any equipment used to control dust fail, the site shall cease all material handling
operations immediately until the dust control equipment has been repaired or replaced
22. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a Noise
Management Plan for the written approval of the LPA. The Noise Management Plan shall
identify all areas of the site and site operations where Noise from construction works may be
generated and further identify control methods to ensure that Noise does not create problems to
nearby noise sensitive properties. Once in place, all identified measures shall be implemented
and maintained at all times. Should any equipment used to control noise fail, the site shall
cease all construction operations within 1 hour until the noise control equipment has been
repaired or replaced.
23. Any trees or buildings on the site which are to be felled/removed and which have the potential
to provide bat roosts shall be surveyed by a competent specialist one month prior to their
felling/removal. If the presence of bats is recorded mitigation measures shall be first submitted
to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The felling/removal of such
trees/buildings shall be carried out in accordance with the approved mitigation measures.
23. To ensure the ecological interest on the site is maintained in accordance with policies EN7C,
EN7D and EN7E of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan - Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Plan.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with the Chapel Street Planning Obligations Development
Control Policy Note and policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP 1995 and H8
of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
4. To ensure that proper accessibility by public transport, cycling and walking is provided in
accordance with policy A1 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development
Plan
5. Standard Reason R016A Safety of traffic
6. Standard Reason R041A Access for people with disabilities
7. Reason: To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding and to
safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
8. To prevent pollution of the River Irwell in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
9. To prevent pollution of the River Irwell in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
10. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
12. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
13. To ensure compliance with policies EC8 of Regional Spatial Strategy and Policy S2B of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan - Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
14. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
15. To prevent the spread of invasive Japanese knotweed and Giant Hogweed in accordance with
policy EN20 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
16. To minimise the effect on local air quality in accordance with policy EN20 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
17. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
18. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
19. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
20. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
21. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
22. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
APPLICATION No:
05/51404/LBC
APPLICANT:
Wilterton Ltd
LOCATION:
Crown Theatre Church Street Eccles M30 0LZ
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for the partial demolition of building,
retention of elevations to Church Street and Mather Road,
erection of five storey rear extension and conversion of existing
building to form 37 apartments and two retail units
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the ‘L-shaped’ former Crown Theatre, Church Street, Eccles. The
building is Grade II Listed and was last used as a bingo hall. It has been vacant for the last 20years
and is now a building at risk of being lost. This application should be considered alongside the
application for Planning Permission (05/51089/FUL).
To the north of the site is a sign making company, beyond which are residential properties.
Planning permission was approved in November 2004 for the demolition of the sign making
company and the erection of a terrace of four dwellings (04/49160/FUL). To the east of the site are
flats set in landscaped gardens. To the south, on the opposite side of Church Street, is an open
grassed area with a public footpath running through. To the west, on the opposite side of Mather
Road but fronting Church Street, is a parade of retail premises, some with flats above. Beyond this
parade is the Patricroft Key Local Centre (60m away).
93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The proposal is to convert the existing building and to erect a five-storey rear extension to provide
37 apartments together with retail space at ground floor (232m2 floorspace of which 110m2 is retail
storage). There is an existing single storey rear extension that was a later addition to the building.
It is proposed to demolish this extension to create 8 on-site car parking spaces, cycle and bin
storage and a small area of landscaping.
Three new angled windows, which would project between 1 and 1.2m from the eastern elevation
and which would extend the full height of the building are also proposed. These would be set back
8m, 10.8m and 13.2m from the front elevation. In addition, a similar projecting structure is
proposed to provide balconies to the living rooms of three of the residential units (at first, second
and third floor levels). These balconies would again project from the eastern elevation but would
be set back 1.1m from the front elevation. They would project 2.2m. All four window/balcony
structures would be finished in timber cladding.
The 5-storey rear extension would form part of the east facing elevation and would project 12.5m
in a northerly direction (from the rear of the building) to form a small courtyard as detailed above.
The extension would be approximately 8.7m wide and would be supported on stilts to allow for
additional parking at ground floor level. It would be constructed from a mixture of brickwork,
render and glass block and would incorporate circular feature windows in the east facing elevation.
Projecting from the east facing elevation (made up of both the existing building and the proposed
extension) would be a new 5-storey external staircase together with a series of 5 balconies (one for
each floor). The staircase and balcony structure would collectively measure 7.8m X 2.7m and
would be set back 15.2m from the front elevation. This structure would be constructed from glass
block and render.
Alterations to the main roof of the building are proposed which would result in an increase in its
height at the rear of 2.4m. The small roof extension would be recessed from the main faēade by
0.3m and would be constructed from brickwork that would contrast with the existing elevations to
highlight it as a modern addition.
Due to variations in floor levels within the building, various alterations to window openings are
also proposed. In addition, two new double door openings are proposed in the front elevation
(south) to serve the proposed retail units.
SITE HISTORY
04/48824/COU and 04/48818/LBC – No decision has been issued on these applications. The
developer has stated his intention to withdraw these applications following a decision on the
current applications.
In March 2003, planning permission was refused for the erection of one 5 storey block of 19 two
bedroom apartments together with the creation of new vehicular access (03/45454/FUL)
94
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
In December 2002, a planning application was withdrawn for the erection of one five storey block
of 19 apartments together with creation of new vehicular access (02/45093/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
The Theatres Trust – Although concern is raised with regard to level of demolition and
reconfiguration of architectural elements, it is accepted that more sympathetic uses are unviable
because of the overall cost of repair and restoration. Therefore, they support the scheme on the
basis that the external shell will be restored to make this a landmark building for the area.
However, they are of the opinion that more extensive restoration of the main theatre elevation
should be carried out to compensate for the extensive internal demolition. They request
specifically that the following restorations/details be considered:
The parapet pinnacles, relief moulding and pyramid-shaped roof;
The canopy; and
The details of the new entrance doors.
It is also requested that a condition be attached for a record of the internal elements to be made
prior to the commencement of development.
English Heritage – Objection is raised to the loss of the principle staircase and clarification is
requested with regard to the re-use of the cast iron columns. However, since their comments the
scheme has been amended to allow retention of the principle staircase.
Ancient Monuments Society – support the views of the Theatres Trust.
The Victorian Society – no comments received.
Government Office for the North-West – no comments received.
The Council for British Archaeology – An initial response was received on 13th October
requesting a copy of the listing description. This was faxed on 27th October and no further
comments have been received since.
Society Protection of Ancient Buildings – no comments received.
The Georgian Group – no comments received.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 29th September 2005.
95
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
A site notice was displayed on 21st September 2005.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policies:
ER3 Built Heritage
ER4 Contribution of Built Heritage to Regeneration
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7/1 Housing Area Improvement and Renewal – Private Sector
Other policies:
EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
Conservation Areas
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
CH2 Works to Listed Buildings
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issues relating to this application are the change of use of the building to residential and
retail uses, and the impact of the internal and external alterations on the building.
Change of use of the Building
Policy CH2 states that a change of use from the original use of a listed building will only be
permitted where it is not practical or economically feasible to continue that original use, or a new
use is required to secure the long-term future of the listed building. Policy EN12 encourages new
uses for Listed Buildings where it can be shown that the buildings are no longer able to support
their original use. The building has been vacant for 20years and is now seen as a building at risk of
being lost. It is unrealistic to expect that the building will be brought back into use as a theatre.
Therefore, I am satisfied that the conversion of this listed building will secure its long-term future
and am satisfied with the principle of development.
Impact of the development on the Listed Building
Policy ER3 seeks to protect, conserve and enhance the built heritage of the Region. Policy ER4
seeks to use the Regions built heritage to drive forward urban regeneration. Policy CH2 states that
proposals involving the alteration or change of use of a listed building will only be permitted
where they would preserve or enhance the character and features of special architectural or historic
interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing. This is reiterated in Policy EN12.
96
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The former Crown Theatre is a landmark building for Eccles and is in a very prominent location.
At present it is falling into severe dis-repair and is in need of significant investment. This proposal
would provide the necessary investment to bring the building back into use which would in turn act
as a catalyst for the regeneration of the wider area.
The proposal would retain the main frontages of the building and would result in their repair and
cleaning. Given the extensive demolition that is taking place and the advice of the Theatres Trust,
a condition has been attached for three original features of the building which were above the front
(Church Street) elevation to be re-instated. These are:
 The parapet pinnacles;
 Relief moulding; and
 Pyramid-shaped roof.
To make the conversion of the building economically viable, a large 5-storey extension is
proposed to the rear. The extension would marry with the east facing elevation and would respect
the scale and massing of the parent building. The modern materials proposed for the extension, as
with the other additions to the building, would distinguish them from the original Theatre and
would result in notable contrasts. The alterations proposed respect the character and setting of the
listed building and, in my view, would contribute to the organic history of the building in
accordance with Annex C5 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic
Environment (PPG15).
The proposal also seeks to reuse the existing ten cast iron columns as features within a common
space area. Two flights of the main decorated staircase will be retained. The character of the
interior as a cinema would be effectively removed and remodelled for residential use but this is
outweighed by the retention and reuse of external shell of the building.
PPG15 advises that specific information should be provided to justify any demolition works that
that are proposed. These are:The marketing history.
A survey of the condition of the building.
Economic justification comparing the development costs with the end values.
I am satisfied with the marketing that has been carried out which accords with the requirements
contained in PPG 15. I am satisfied that it is unlikely that the building would ever be converted
back to its original use as a theatre and that the current proposal is acceptable and will secure the
long-term future of the building.
An economic justification and building condition survey has also been provided. The report sets
out the current condition of the vacant building, estimates the cost of the proposed conversion,
together with the expected minimal profit from the sale of all apartments. This clearly indicates
that to reinstate the building as a theatre is uneconomic.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
97
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Timber windows will replace the UPVc windows originally proposed and extruded
aluminium rainwater pipes and gutters will replace the plastic originally proposed. This
will enhance the character of the listed building.
Half-height decorative railings have been incorporated into the development for several of
the ground floor windows fronting Mather Road. This would contribute to the character of
the listed building whilst improving the security for future residents.
Reinstatement of the pyramidal tower cap, pinnacles and relief moulding.
Re-use of the 10 cast iron columns and the retention of the main staircase within the
building have been agreed following negotiation.
CONCLUSION
The main issues relating to this application are the change of use of the building to residential and
retail uses, and the impact of the internal and external alterations on the building. I am satisfied
that the residential and retail use of the building has been adequately justified and will secure the
long-term survival of the building. I am also satisfied that the alterations proposed are sympathetic
to the building and are necessary to make the proposal economically viable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the
external elevations of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
3. The materials to be used for the windows of the development shall be timber, the style and
finish of which shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
commencement of development. The materials to be used for the rainwater pipes and gutters
shall be extruded aluminium.
4. No development shall commence until a method statement for cleaning the brickwork and
terracotta has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Only the approved method of cleaning shall be employed.
5. No development shall commence until a method statement for cleaning the brickwork and
terracotta has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Only the approved method of cleaning shall be employed.
5. No development shall commence until the interior of the building has been fully recorded in
accordance with a method statement to be agreed in writing previously with the Local Planning
Authority.
6. No development shall be commenced until details for the provision of replica parapet
98
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
pinnacles, relief moulding and a pyramid tower cap above the Church Street elevation of the
building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
parapet pinnacles, relief moulding and a pyramid tower cap shall be carried out in accordance
with approved details prior to the first occupation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
7. Prior to the commencement of development, detailed elevations for the retail units shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed scheme
shall be implemented as part of the approval hereby granted consent.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
2. To ensure the development respects the character of the listed building in accordance with
policy EN12 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. To ensure the development respects the character of the listed building in accordance with
policy EN12 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. To ensure the development respects the character of the listed building in accordance with
policy EN12 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. To ensure a record of the Listed Building is collated to protect its historical significance.
6. To ensure the development respects the character of the listed building in accordance with
policy EN12 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. To ensure the development respects the character of the listed building in accordance with
policy EN12 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This approval relates to the amended plans that were received on 1st December 2005.
2. With regard to the replica tower cap, pinnacles and relief moulding, please contact Mark Price
from the Theatres Trust [(020) 7836 8519] for further advice before the scheme is submitted to
the City Council.
3. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
99
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/51472/FUL
APPLICANT:
Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Lumns Lane And Agecroft Road Pendlebury Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of seven - three storey buildings comprising 96
apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking
and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Pendlebury
The application site is currently vacant and undergoing remediation works in relation to a previous
planning application approved on the site (04/47881/FUL). The previous application was for the
erection of 58 dwellings and 96 apartments. The site has changed owners and the current
application relates to amendments of the 96 apartments. The whole site is bounded by the railway
line to the west and Agecroft Road to the south, beyond which are residential properties. To the
north of the site is the area for the proposed Slack Brook Country Park and to the east is Lumns
Lane.
The proposed development comprises 96 two bedroom apartments in seven three storey buildings.
There would be 118 car parking spaces associated within the site including 11 disabled spaces and
20 cycle spaces. Vehicular access into the site would be from Agecroft Road.
The apartments would be surrounded by dwellings to the east, south and west of the site. To the
north would be the proposed Slack Brook Country Park. The dwellings surrounding the
apartments have not yet been constructed.
SITE HISTORY
In March 2005 planning permission was granted for the erection of 58 dwellings and 96
apartments with associated car parking together with the creation of a new vehicular access of
Agecroft Road. The application also includes the provision of a footpath / cycle way through the
site linking Agecroft Road to the proposed country park (ref: 04/47881/FUL).
In February 2004, a full planning application was submitted for the erection of 60 residential
dwellings on part of the application site, with associated car parking together with the creation of a
new vehicular access and alterations to an existing pedestrian access, the application was
withdrawn. (ref: 04/47878/FUL)
100
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
In February 2000, planning permission was granted for the erection of 56 dwellings with vehicular
access off Agecroft Road (ref: 99/39133/FUL)
In March 1998, planning permission was granted for the erection of 115 dwellings with vehicular
access off Lumns Lane (ref: 97/36458/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – recommends a condition requiring details of noise
protection measures and contaminated land
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – advises that the site is poorly served by
public transport, but that the layout of the scheme does take account of pedestrian safety through
the provision of road humps and footpath links.
Network Rail – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – comments received relating to contamination and a number
of conditions have been recommended
Environment Agency – No objection recommends a condition relating to surface water
United Utilities – no objection but recommends a separate drainage system for the site
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections subject to adequate fencing
PUBLICITY
2 – 30 (evens) Agecroft Road
1 – 6 Park Lane West
4 – 7 Frankby Close
2 – 38 (evens) Pendlecroft Avenue
Biffa Waste
1 – 7 Lock Keepers Mews
1 – 7 (odds) Kilcoby Avenue
1 – 7 Bolbury Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection and in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Loss of trees
Neighbour conflicts
101
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/16 – Sites for New Housing – Lumns Lane/Agecroft Road, Pendlebury
(3.3ha)
EN5 – Nature Conservation
EN17 – Croal-Irwell Valley
EN23 – Croal-Irwell Valley
Other policies: H4 – Housing Allocation
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
T13 – Car Parking
T2 – Network of Major Roads of More Than Local Importance
T10 – Pedestrians
EN20 – Pollution Control
EN10 - Landscape
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EN6 – Irwell Valley
EN7D – Wildlife Corridors
R4 – Key Recreation Areas
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
DEV7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
DES9 – Landscaping
EN13 – Contaminated Land
DES11 – Design and Crime
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft policy EN6 – recommended no further modifications
Draft policy EN7D – recommended no further modifications in relation to this site
Draft policy EN13 – recommended no further modifications
102
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Draft policy R4 – recommended only minor amendments
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 DES7 - recommended no changes to this policy.
Draft policy DES9 – recommended minor amendments
Draft policy DES11 - recommended no changes to this policy.
Draft Policy DES13 – recommended no changes to policy.
Draft policy A1 – recommended no further modifications
Draft policy A2 – recommended no further modifications
Draft policy A8 – recommended no further modifications
Draft policy A10 - recommended only relatively minor amendments
Draft policy H8 – recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains the same.
Draft policy EN6 – recommended no further modifications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in the determination of this planning application to be: whether the
principle of the proposed development is acceptable, whether the proposal would provide adequate
access into the site; whether the applicant would make an appropriate contribution to the provision
of open space; whether issues of contamination have been taken into account, whether the layout
and design of the site is acceptable; and whether the proposal complies with the relevant provisions
of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft UDP. I will deal with each in turn below
The Principle of the Proposed Development
Adopted Policy H9/16 identifies the application site as a site for new housing, in accordance with
Policy H4. It states that outline planning permission for the development of the site for residential
purposes was granted in 1987. As the site lies on the edge of the proposed Slack Brook Country
Park, the reasoned justification states that pedestrian access into the Country Park should be
provided as part of the housing development.
103
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should, inter alia, contribute to the provision
of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area, provide a high quality residential
environment and make adequate provision for open space.
Draft Policy EN6 states that development within the Irwell Valley will not be permitted where it
would be contrary to a number of factors, including where it would reduce public accessibility of
the valley, result in the unacceptable loss of land of acknowledged recreational value or have an
unacceptable impact on important views into, through or within the valley.
Draft Policy R4 states that planning permission will only be granted on land within, adjoining or
directly affecting a Key Recreation Area where it would be consistent with a number of objectives,
including the protection and enhancement of the existing and potential recreational use of the area,
the protection and improvement of the amenity of the area, the provision of public access for
walking and cycling and the provision of open land recreational uses.
The site is located within the Croal-Irwell Valley and an area of search for wildlife habitats and
corridors in both the Adopted and Revised UDPs, and is also allocated for recreational purposes in
the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP under Policy R4.
The site has an extant permission for the erection of 58 dwellings and 96 apartments including the
provision of a footpath / cycle way through the site linking Agecroft Road to the proposed country
park. The current application seeks to amend the apartment element of the previous planning
application. The current application would be linked to the extant permission by amending the
existing Section 106 Legal Agreement, to include the proposal set before the panel. The amended
Section 106 would ensure the provisions of the footpath / cycle way agreed by the extant
permission. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposal complies with the policies above and I
am therefore satisfied that the principle of the proposal is acceptable.
Impact on the Highway Network
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.
Adopted Policy T2 states that the Council will safeguard the network of roads of more than local
importance, including the A6044 Agecroft Road. Proposals likely to have a materially harmful
impact on the network’s ability to accommodate appropriate traffic flows will only be permitted if
they include measures to deal with that impact.
Draft Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact on highway safety and on the ability of the Strategic Route Network to accommodate
104
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
appropriate traffic flows. The A6044 Agecroft Road is identified as forming part of the Strategic
Route Network.
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.
In terms of car parking within the site, it is proposed to provide 118 parking spaces. This would be
12 less than that approved on the application earlier in the yearI consider the proposed level of car
parking to be acceptable and accords with Adopted Policy T13 and Draft Policy A10.
Open Space
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 applicants have agreed to make a contribution towards
open space. This would be through a combination of on-site provision and the provision of a
commuted sum towards open space in the vicinity. The proposed footpath/cycle link and the
wooded area to the rear of the site would constitute the on-site informal open space provision. The
existing Section 106 agreement would be amended to reflect the current application. This is in
accordance with Adopted policies H6 and H11 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning
Guidance on open space.
Contamination and Landfill Gas
Adopted Policy EN20 states that the Council will support and encourage measures to reduce land
contamination and noise. It states that development such as housing will not normally be permitted
where existing pollution, including land contamination, is unacceptable unless it can be
demonstrated that the development includes sufficient improvement measures to reduce the
nuisance to an acceptable level.
Draft Policy EN13 requires the submission of a site investigation report with planning applications
for the development of contaminated sites.
In accordance with Draft Policy EN13, the applicants have submitted a site investigation report
with the application. This has been considered by the GMGU. The site has been previously been
landfilled and is a gassing site. Having received advice from the GMGU on the previous planning
application, I have attached a number of conditions relating to landfill gas in order to ensure that
the safety of future residents is not compromised. The S106 agreement also makes requirements of
the applicants in respect of contamination. Given the previous permissions for residential
105
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
development on the site, and in light of the conditions attached and the contents of the S106
agreements, I am satisfied that this application accords with Adopted Policy EN20 and Draft
Policy EN13.
Layout and Design of the Proposal
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 visual appearance of the development.
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.
Adopted Policy EN10 states that the City Council will protect and enhance landscape quality
through the provision of improved standards of landscaping within all new developments.
Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
Draft Policy DES9 states that landscaping should be of a high quality, reflect the character of the
area and the development, not detract from safety and security and form an integral part of the
development.
Given the siting of the proposed apartments and the distance between the application site and
neighbouring residential properties, I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable loss of
privacy or detrimental impact on the amenity of existing residents as a result of this proposal. The
proposed apartments would be an adequate distance to the proposed dwellings that would surround
the current application site. I am of the opinion that the application accords with Adopted Policy
DEV1 and Draft Policy DES7.
Samples of materials have been provided as part of the application and I am satisfied that the
materials are of a suitably high quality and in keeping with the surrounding area, in accordance
with Adopted Policy DEV2 and Draft Policy DES1.
I have attached a condition requiring details of landscaping within the site. I am satisfied that this
will ensure that the landscaping meets the criteria of Draft Policy DES9.
Other Issues
106
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
One objector is concerned regarding the loss of trees on the site. The extant and previous
permission also necessitated the loss of the majority of the trees on the site. The majority of the
trees are self seeded and are not worthy of protection and I therefore have no objection to their loss.
I have attached a condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a
landscaping scheme for the site, which will include a number of replacement trees. I consider that
a well-designed landscaping scheme will enhance the area.
The adjacent land user Biffa Waste has objected on the grounds that future occupation of the site
could lead to constraints on the development of the adjacent development. No previous objections
have been received from Biffa Waste and they suggest careful consideration of noise attenuation. I
have attached a condition requiring a noise assessment.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicants will enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure public access along the
footpath/cycle link and through the wooded area and contributions towards the provision and
maintenance of open space and in the area.
CONCLUSION
On balance, I am satisfied that the application is acceptable. This proposal would be an amendment
to the extant permission and would provide a satisfactory footpath/cycle link from Agecroft Road
to the proposed Country Park. I am satisfied that the conditions will ensure that the landscaping,
materials, footpath/cycle link and wooded area would be of a suitably high standard and that future
residents would not be detrimentally affected by contamination. I therefore make the following
recommendation:
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.
Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of building works, the applicant shall submit for written approval
to the Local Planning Authority a scheme detailing precise noise protection measures to allow
all habitable rooms to achieve the requirements of BS8233:1999. This assessment shall also
107
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
identify additional measures (if deemed necessary) to allow all habitable rooms either facing or
with a direct line of sight to Agecroft Road, Lumns Lane or the Railway line to achieve the
requirements of BS8233:1999 whilst allowing for the provision of summer cooling and rapid
ventilation. Once agreed by the Local Planning Authority, all measures shall be incorporated
and maintained thereafter.
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. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (and any subsequent amending order), there
shall be no development within the curtilage of any dwelling hereby approved as defined in
Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the above Order without the prior grant of planning permission by the
Local Planning Authority.
5. No development approved by this permission shall commence until a scheme for the provision
and implementation of a surface water regulation system has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with
the approved details prior to first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved, unless
agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. No development shall be started until:
a) The site has been subjected to a detailed scheme for the investigation and recording of all
contamination, including soil/ground contamination and its potential to be harmful to human
health and to pollute the water environment, and a report has been submitted to and approved
by the Local Planning Authority
b) Detailed proposals to protect future occupiers and to prevent pollution of groundwater and
surface waters in line with current best practice for the contaminant monitoring protocols,
remediation of such contamination and confirmatory testing has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These contamination proposals shall be
carried out either before or during such development as appropriate.
c) If further contamination is identified during development then the contamination proposals
shall be revised and the revisions submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority
7. Prior to the commencement of development detailed designs of the gas protection measures
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall
include all details of the gas control schemes for the site and individual properties, details of
the gas vent stacks, the method of connection between the stacks and the Geofin, the method of
connection around service entries to the houses and the layout of foundation down stands.
108
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
8. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the means of vehicular
access from Agecroft Road has been constructed and laid out in accordance with the approved
plans.
9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme showing the
provision of waste recycling facilities within the site shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to
first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved, unless agreed otherwise in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
10. Car parking within the site shall be laid out in accordance with the details shown on drawing
no. 12138 PSP01 Revision H and shall be made available at all times.
11. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the location
and design of cycle storage, bin storage and recycling facilities within the site shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved cycle
and bin stores and recycling facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the approved
details and shall be made available for use prior to the first occupation of any unit and retained
thereafter.
12. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and Country Planning
Act, 1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning
Act, 1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local
Planning Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that
a commuted sum as required by policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP,
Policy H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP and SPG7 Provision of Open Space
and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development will be paid to the Local
Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Reason: In order to protect occupiers from landfill gas
5. Reason: In order to reduce the risk of flooding
6. To prevent future occupiers, prevent pollution and to assess the risks to the water environment
109
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
7. The site has been landfilled in the past and contains landfill gas and measures are required to
prevent this becoming a hazard to occupiers
8. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
9. Reason: In order to encourage waste recycling, in accordance with Policy MW11 of the
Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
10. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
11. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes and in order to encourage
waste recycling, in accordance with Policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
Unitary Development Plan and Policy MW11 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan
12. 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.
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. 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
3. The applicant is advised that trickle vents may not be able to achieve adequate rapid cooling
for rooms. The Environmental Protection Team may be contacted for further advice on 0161
737 0551.
4. The applicants attention is drawn to the attached letter from United Utilities
APPLICATION No:
05/51558/REM
110
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
APPLICANT:
Williams Tarr Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Between Cadishead Way Irlam Wharf Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Reserved matters application for siting, design, external
appearance, means of access and landscaping for the erection of
two industrial units (totalling 10,216 sq.m)
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is within the Northbank Industrial Estate and is currently vacant. The site is adjoined by an
industrial unit to the southeast, and new industrial units under construction to the north.
The application includes 2 blocks of development. The first block lies adjacent and parallel to
Cadishead Way and is to be divided into 9 units averaging 500sq.m. Access to these units will be
off Irlam Wharf Road via the existing development under construction and approved under
application reference 04/48821/FUL. The units will replicate those under construction in terms of
height (8.6 metres) design and appearance. There are to be 89 parking spaces (including 9 for
disabled persons), 10 cycle parking spaces and 4 motorcycle parking spaces. A HGV vehicle
turning area will be provided at the head of the cul de sac in an area which will also be used as
loading facilities for two of the units.
The second block is proposed as a single unit warehouse of 5,600 sq.m. which has a separate
dedicated access off Irlam Wharf Road. This unit would be considerably taller at 15 metres in
height but would also be of similar design details and materials. There are to be 42 parking spaces
(including 5 for disabled persons), 10 cycle parking spaces and 4 motorcycle parking spaces.
Adjoining Irlam Wharf Road is to be a large surfaced area for the parking and turning of HGVs.
Associated with this large warehouse unit are 2 external silo type sprinkler tanks and a pump
housing.
The application indicates landscaping strips to both highway frontages but the details of these are
reserved for further approval.
SITE HISTORY
95/33608/TPDC – Reclaiming of land for future development – approved in 1995
96/35170/TPDC – Erection of distribution warehouse with ancillary offices – approved in 1996
03/45992/OUT - Outline consent or B1, B2, B8 uses- approved in 2003
04/48821/FUL – 16 industrial/warehousing units approved in 2004
111
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions
Health and Safety Executive – No comments received (previously no objections)
Northbank Management Company – no comments received. (previously no objections)
Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received (previously no objections)
Manchester Ship Canal Company – no comments received (previously no objections)
Trafford MBC – no comments received. (previously no objections)
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 11.11.2005
A Press Notice was published on the 17.11.2005.
There are no neighbour addresses to be notified.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policy DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
Policy DP3 – Quality in New Development
UR4 Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC13/31 – Sites for Industry and Warehousing
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: E3/9 – Sites for Employment Development
A9/6 – Provision of New Highways
112
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Other policies:
ST3 – Employment Supply
E5 - Development Within Established Employment Areas.
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
DES11 – Design and Crime
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy DES1 – recommended only minor changes
Draft Policy DES7 – No modifications recommended.
Draft Policy A1 – recommended no changes other than the Council’s own pre-inquiry changes
ST3 – recommends minor amendments only.
E5 – recommends minor amendments only.
Draft Policy A10 - recommended only relatively minor amendments
Draft Policy DES11 - recommended no changes to this policy.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of the proposed development has been established via the granting of outline
consent. The remaining planning issues are the design of the development and the impact of the
development on the neighbouring users.
Design of the development
Policy DEV2 states that the Council will not normally grant planning permission for new
development unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the
development. Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical
context.
The proposed units would be comparable in design to surrounding industrial units and I am
satisfied that the landscaped zones proposed are adequate, and would soften the visual impact of
the development.
Policies T13 and A10 seek to achieve appropriate provision of parking for new developments.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport and Policy A10 seek to encourage the use of more
sustainable forms of travel such as public transport, cycling and car sharing. Therefore, one of the
measures encouraged is maximum level of parking. I am satisfied with the provision proposed and
have negotiated additional facilities for motorcycle and bicycle provision.
113
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
In addition, Policy A1 requires large developments to be accompanied by a Travel Plan as a
measure to encourage more sustainable forms of travel. The applicant has agreed to the principle
of a Travel Plan and a condition has been attached.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 seek to encourage the inclusion of design measures, which reduce
criminal activity. The comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer are awaited but a
quality 2.4 metre high fence has been agreed with the applicant. The details of landscaping are to
be a further reserved matter.
Impact of development on the neighbouring users
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in determining
planning applications including the relationship to the road network, the likely scale and type of
traffic generation, and the arrangements for servicing and access to the proposed development.
This is reiterated in Policy DES1. Policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted
where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments.
Given that the site is located within an existing industrial area, I am satisfied that the proposal
would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. I have no
objections on highway grounds.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The parking provision has been amended to provide for cycle and motorcycle parking.
Furthermore, the principle of a Travel Plan has been agreed with the applicant.
Enlarged perimeter landscaping.
Improved vehicle turning facilities.
Improved pedestrian access.
Agreed boundary fence details.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the design of the buildings and layout of the development is consistent with
the policies contained within the UDP, and are acceptable. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
2. Prior to the first occupation of the development a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and
114
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
approved by the Local planning Authority. The Plan as approved shall be implemented
thereafter monitored and targets met in accordance with the details within the Plan.
3. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the
disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such a scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved
plans.
4. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soak away system, all
surface water drainage from vehicle parking shall be passed through an oil interceptor
designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained.
Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.
5. Any facilities for the storage of chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded
by impervious bund walls, details of which shall be submitted to the Director of Development
Services for approval. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least equivalent to the
capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least
equivalent to 110% of the capacity of the largest tank, or 25% of the total combined capacity of
the interconnected tanks whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight
glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with
no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be
located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank
overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.
6. The parking and vehicular turning facilities shall be made available prior to the first occupation
and shall be retained thereafter at all times
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. To ensure that proper accessibility by public transport, cycling and walking is provided in
accordance with policy A1 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development
Plan.
3. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.
4. To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution.
5. To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution.
6. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
Note(s) for Applicant
115
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th 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.
APPLICATION No:
05/51627/FUL
APPLICANT:
Equion Services Support (Manchester) Limted
LOCATION:
Swinton PFI Police DHQ Chorley Road Swinton M30 7LB
PROPOSAL:
Retention of Police Divisional Headquarters without complying
with Condition 6 (emergency access) on planning permission
01/43362/FUL
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Swinton Police Station Divisional Head Quarters on Chorley Road
in Swinton. The application is to remove Condition 6 of planning permission 01/43362/FUL:
‘The Union Street access shall only be used for emergency egress and ingress’.
The police station is located on the western side of Swinton District Centre. It lies to the north of
Crompton House and formally contained Albert Mill. It’s western boundary lies along the rear
gardens of houses on Lower Sutherland Street, its southern boundary to open space, its eastern
boundary to Union Street with its frontage to Chorley Road.
SITE HISTORY
In March 2001 outline planning permission was granted for the erection of police divisional
headquarters (01/41868/OUT). In February 2002 planning permission was granted for the
erection of a Divisional Headquarters Police Station with associated landscaping, car parking and
construction of new vehicular access (01/43362/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received.
PUBLICITY
116
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 – 16 (E) Crompton Street
2 – 14 (E) Lower Sutherland Street
18 – 28 (E) Lower Sutherland Street
38 and 40 Lower Sutherland Street
224 – 230 (E) Chorley Road
227 – 263 (O) Chorley Road
273 – 289 (O) Chorley Road
1 Abbey Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues
have been raised:
Union Street is in a poor condition
Residents parking scheme for Crompton Street
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy DES7 - The report of the Planning Inspector into the objections to the replacement
plan has recommended no changes to this policy.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether there would be an unacceptable
impact on the amenity of nearby residents on Crompton Street by removing the condition.
Adopted Policy DEV1 and Revised Policy DES7 state development will not be permitted where it
would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments.
117
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
This application has been submitted on behalf of the police following several meetings with local
residents and councillors. The headlights from vehicles exiting onto Chorley Road from the police
station and the lights and noise from blue light traffic is having an unacceptable impact on the
residents of Chorley Road who live opposite the main vehicular entrance/exit of the police station.
It is proposed that the Union Street exit would continue to be used at all times by blue light traffic
for egress and in hours of darkness the office staff would also leave the station through the Union
Street exit. In day light hours the Chorley Road exit could be used by all vehicles. Condition 6 of
the original application (01/43362/FUL) stated Union Street could only be used by emergency
egress and ingress and so this would need to be removed in order to resolve the problem of
disturbance and nuisance to Chorley Road residents.
The rear elevations of residential properties on Crompton Street face Union Street. They currently
have the situation where emergency blue light traffic can exit onto Union Street and along to
Chorley Road. The distance from the nearest rear elevation to the exit point of the station on
Union Street is approximately 40m. I do not consider there would be a significant increase in noise
or disturbance from office staff using Union Street to egress during hours of darkness due to this
distance, whereas the residents on Chorley Road currently suffer from lights shining directly into
the windows at the front of their properties.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the removal of Condition 6 of planning permission 01/43362/FUL is
acceptable, as it would not have a significant unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers
of the residential properties on Union Street in terms of noise and disturbance. I am of the opinion
that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement UDPs and there are no material considerations which outweigh this finding. I
therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No traffic shall egress from the police station main access to Chorley Road between dusk and
dawn.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
118
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/51677/FUL
APPLICANT:
P Janjic
LOCATION:
82 Green Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Retention and modification of existing house
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a new end of terrace property on Green Lane, on the corner of Cromwell
Road. The proposal is to broadly retain the size and shape of the property as built, with alterations
to the exterior appearance, in order to ensure that it is more in accordance with the property
previously approved (see site history below).
Alterations to size of dwelling
The design of the house to be retained differs from that previously approved in a number of ways.
The whole side elevation of the house is 0.8m wider than approved, now being a maximum of
6.8m wide. The gable wall of the house immediately adjoins an open grassed area on the corner of
Cromwell Road. The original scheme had proposed a detached garage at the rear, set approx 5.5m
away from the house and accessed from the rear alley. The house as built has extended the two
storey out rigger to a length of 6m, instead of 2.95, and linked the garage into the rear. The ridge
line of the house is now 300mm higher than the height of the original house.
Design and appearance
The house has been built in a poor brick match to the front elevation, stone quoins and stone sills at
the front and render along the whole gable wall and the rear. The proposal is to remove the quoins,
render and front brickwork and re-brick the whole front and side elevation in a Flemish bond in
order to reflect the style of the rest of the terraced block. The windows on the front elevation are to
be removed and replaced with traditional sash windows in keeping with the rest of the block. The
masonry around the windows on the front and side elevation will be removed and replaced with
brick camber arches above and stone sills below. A solid timber door would replace the uPVC
front door. The rear elevation would remain rendered.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted in August 2002 for a new terraced house at the end of an existing
block. (ref. 02/44031/FUL). Construction was started but the house was not built in accordance
with the approved scheme..
119
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
As the applicant continued to build without complying with the original planning permission and
enforcement notice was served in November 2004. The applicants appealed against the
enforcement notice. A subsequent appeal was dismissed, the notice was upheld and planning
permission was refused. The applicants were either required to totally demolish the house by 13th
September 2005 or re-build it in strict accordance with the approved scheme by 13th December
2005
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Services – no objections.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 15th November 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
72 – 78 Green Lane
169 and 216 Cromwell Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 Meeting housing needs, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 Provision of New Housing Development, DES1 Respecting Context, DES7
Amenity o Users and Neighbours
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
DES1 – Minor modifications general thrust remains the same
120
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
DES2 – Recommends modifications to the reasoned justification
DES7 – No modifications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the design of this new house and the effect
on the appearance of the street scene and the neighbouring residents from the retention of the
property.
Both H1 policies seek to ensure housing needs are met. I am of the opinion that the proposal is in
accordance with H1, in that it would be suitable for family accommodation and would be on
previously developed land.
Policies DEV1, DEV 2, DES1 and DES7 seek to ensure that the development is acceptable in its
size and siting, it is of good design and it reflects the surrounding character and design of the area.
Alterations to size
The house, as it has been built does not totally reflect the design and character of the surrounding
area, particularly the rest of the terraced block. The ridge has been built 300mm higher than the
adjoining house. However, I do not consider that in itself, the higher ridge line would adversely
affect the street scene and leave the block unbalanced, particularly as the house at the other end of
the block is also higher.
The overall width of the house is now 0.8m wider, but again I do not consider that this leaves the
property as out of keeping with the rest of the block as this gable extends into a grassed bank area
which then adjoins Cromwell Road. Therefore the visual effect of the house does not create an
over dominant appearance in the street scene.
The two storey outrigger at the rear has now increased in size and linked to the single storey
garage, which previously would have been detached. It now projects out 6m from the rear of the
main body of the house. Therefore I have assessed the possible impact on the occupiers of no. 80.
The new house is set to the north of no. 80. The terraced properties at the rear on Cromwell Road
are off-set and not immediately behind no. 80. The out rigger is also set 2.5m in from the boundary
with no. 80. Therefore I would consider that the overall circumstances would reduce the
overshadowing and overbearing impact on the occupiers of this property. In considering this
impact I am also mindful that the occupiers have not objected to the scheme.
There are two new side facing window at first floor level that have been installed so that they are
side facing towards no. 80 and its garden/yard area. I do not have concerns about the bathroom
window, which is frosted. However, there is also a bedroom window. Such a window would not
normally be allowed because of the possible loss of privacy to the neighbours. I would consider
that it would be possible for this window to be moved either to the rear of the gable wall without
having an adverse impact on either the house to the rear or the street scene. Therefore, having
discussed it with the agent, I propose a condition to require details of a replacement window to be
agreed and to be installed as part of the work, while the existing one is removed.
121
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Design and appearance.
The proposed removal of the render and brickwork and its replacement with new bricks
constructed in a Flemish bond would match the construction of the rest of the terraced block. Also
the proposed change to the window and door design would ensure that the building would be much
more in keeping. If this external appearance could be improved, I am of the opinion that the impact
of the new house in the street scene would be greatly reduced.
The size and shape of the windows in the side elevation would not be altered. However, given that
they face into the side street and it is still intended to include brick camber arches and stone sills, I
do not consider that the windows would be detrimental to the street scene.
It is proposed to retain the render to the rear wall and to the inner wall facing no. 80 Green Lane.
This is not the prominent elevations, and the some of other properties in the block also have render
on rear elevation. Therefore I have no objections to this render remaining.
Four trees were removed from the site in order to construct the house. These trees were not
protected nor were they worthy of a preservation order, in the opinion of the City’s Arboricultural
Officer. However, a condition was originally applied to require replacement planting and I would
consider that it would still be appropriate to require eight replacement trees to be planted.
An initial PPG24 noise assessment was carried out by Environmental Services for the previous
planning application and it concluded that the development would fall into category C. Therefore a
condition requiring a noise assessment to be undertaken to ensure that the property was
constructed in order to ensure that the future occupiers were not adversely affected from external
noise in the area. It is not clear whether adequate noise insulation has been provided and therefore
I recommend that a condition be attached to require this to be adhered to.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
A condition is recommended to require the approval of the facing materials in order to ensure a
higher quality of appearance is achieved. Also conditions would require the planting of
replacement trees and adequate measures to mitigate against noise nuisance.
CONCLUSION
The principal of a new residential unit on this site was previously accepted. However, the design of
the house as has been constructed is out of character with the surrounding house. I am satisfied that
the alterations proposed with this new application would ensure that the property would be much
122
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
more in keeping. Therefore I do not consider that this would have an adverse impact on the
neighbouring residents or the street scene.
It is clear that the time has elapsed for the applicant to comply with the terms of the enforcement
notice upheld by the Planning Inspector. Action could still be taken against non-compliance with
the notice, However, the applicant seeks to comply with the principle s of the second option in the
notice, but with an amended house type. Having regard to the fact that the Inspector allowed 6
months for the applicant to comply with the originally approved plan, I consider it reasonable that
a similar period is allowed for this scheme to be completed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Within six months of the date of this decision, demolish the dwelling as far as is necessary and
rebuild it strict accordance with the approved plans no. A181 004 Rev C, and scheme to be
submitted and approved for the replacement bedroom window, in accordance with condition 2.
2. Within one month of the approval of this application, a scheme to brick up the south facing
bedroom window and replace it with a new window in the north or east elevation shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall be
implented during the alterations to the property hereby approved and in accordance with the
timescales of Condition 01.
3. No rebuilding works shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the
brickwork of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The house shall be rebuilt in accordance with the approved samples.
4. Eight replacement trees shall be planted in accordance with a scheme that has first been
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in the next available planting season
between November to March, and this condition shall not be considered to have been complied
with until the replacement trees have been established. Any trees dying within five years of
planting shall be replaced.
5. Within one month of the date of this approval the developer shall undertake an assessment and
submit a report to the Local Planning Authority determining the external noise levels that the
residents in the house will be subject to (day and night). The assessment shall take into
consideration the expected noise from surrounding development and traffic movements. The
developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate any disturbances. The assessment
shall have due regard to PPG24 Planning and Noise. This report shall be approved in writing
before the rebuilding works commence and any mitigation measures shall be completed as part
of the overall approved scheme.
(Reasons)
123
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
124
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/51450/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Community Health And Social Care Directorate
LOCATION:
Hollybank Eccles Old Road Salford M6 8RA
PROPOSAL:
Alterations and erection of extension to existing garage to
provide drop in centre
WARD:
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Hollybank – a supported residential home for people with mental
health problems. Hollybank is located within a predominantly residential area with residential
properties to the north, south and west of the site. The land to the east of the site is used for
commercial purposes.
It is proposed to erect a single storey extension to the existing garage and then to convert the
garage into an information point and drop in centre for users of the mental health services
provided by Salford City Council. The Centre would be open Monday to Friday between 9am
and 4pm. There would be 2 members of staff. Users of the centre will be able to drop in to pick
up leaflets on the service provided by Salford as well as to arrange a formal interview with one
of the centres 2 staff members during which the individuals needs will be assessed and the best
sources of information/help identified.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was posted on the 7th of October 2005.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 6 Oden House, 395 Langworthy Road
7 to 27 (excluding 13) Theatre House, 397 Langworthy Road
Salford Education Careeers Service, 36 Eccles Old Road
52 to 60 (even) Eccles Old Road
2 to 10 (even) Castleway
2 to 18 (even) Ashcroft Avenue
105 to 116 Humphrey Booth Gardens
17 to 24 Humphrey Booth Gardens
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of representation/objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised –
125
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
11. Increased traffic and resultant car parking problems.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
SC9 – Health Care Facilities
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EHC1 – Provision and Improvement of Health and Community Facilities
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy DES1 – Draft Policy A10 - recommended only relatively minor amendments
Draft Policy DES7 – No modifications recommended.
Draft Policy A10 - Draft Policy A10 - recommended only relatively minor amendments
Draft Policy ECH1 – No modifications recommended
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in the determination of the application to be whether the design of
the proposed extension and the proposed windows/ doors that would be inserted to facilitate
conversion would be in-keeping with the existing building and whether the proposed
conversion and opening of an information point/drop in centre would have an adverse impact
upon the residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents.
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.
The proposed extension is well designed with a flat roof that matches that of the original
building. The windows and doors that would be inserted to facilitate the conversion of the
existing garage into the proposed information point/drop off centre are of a similar design/style
to those contained within the existing building and therefore I do not therefore have any
concerns with the proposed development in design terms, particularly as the site of the
proposed development is set within the grounds of Hollybank, away from the main frontage to
the street.
126
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
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 is the impact on
neighbouring residents.
Draft Policy DES7 states that development that would have an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The proposed extension would be an infill development. The extension would therefore be set
further in from the site boundaries than the existing building. The removal of the existing
garage door and its replacement with windows and a door would not have an adverse impact
upon neighbouring residents as the land to the east of the site is not used for residential
purposes. The proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the residential
amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents by way of overlooking or
overshadowing.
The centre is a low-key use that will operate primarily on an appointment basis thus reducing
the numbers of people visiting the unit on an ad hoc basis as individuals that drop in will only
be able to pick up leaflets or browse the net to investigate services offered and to book an
appointment. This in combination with the fact that the site is well served by public transport
means that I am of the opinion that the proposed information point/drop in centre would not
generate a significant amount of additional vehicular traffic to the site nor would it create
unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance.
The proposed conversion would result in the loss of 2 staff car parking spaces. I do not feel that
this would be detrimental to highway safety as the 10 remaining on site are in my opinion
adequate for the existing and proposed uses.
Policy SC9 of the adopted UDP states that City Council will encourage the safeguarding,
maintenance, and improvement of health care provision throughout the City.
This commitement to improving health care facilities across the city is reiterated by Policy
ECH1 of the Revised UDP.
The proposed extension would contribute towards improving the health care facilities available
to the people of Salford and consequently the proposal is in accordance with Policy SC9 of the
adopted UDP and Policy ECH1 of the Revised UDP.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the amenity of existing or future residents of neighbouring
properties would not be unacceptably detrimentally affected as a result of this scheme and that
the design of the proposed extension and garage as converted is acceptable. Consequently, I am
satisfied that the application accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
127
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls, roof and windows 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. Standard Condition M04 Landfill gas
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. In order to satisfy the requirements of condition 3 guidance contained within CIRIA report
149 (referring specifically to characteristic situation No.2) should be followed.
128
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15th December 2005
129