PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
APPLICATION No:
04/47881/FUL
APPLICANT:
Gleeson Homes North West
LOCATION:
Land At Lumns Lane And Agecroft Road Pendlebury Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 58 residential dwellings and 96 apartments with
associated car parking together with the creation of a new
vehicular access and alterations to an existing pedestrian access
WARD:
Pendlebury
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FURTHER ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing my original report, some amendments have been made to the layout of the site.
These amendments only affect the apartments, and are necessary to ensure maximum safety for the
plots adjacent to the existing slope. Some of the apartments blocks have been turned through 90
degrees. The proposed amendments have not altered the overall number of apartments proposed
on the site and have been sited in such a way so as to ensure that there would be no unacceptable
detrimental impact on the amenity of future residents. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed
changes are acceptable.
Following further advice from the Greater Manchester Geological Unit, I have made slight
amendments to conditions 7 and 8. One of the conditions relating to a gas trench has now been
omitted. The GMGU is now satisfied that the conditions attached to this permission and the
contents of the S106 Agreement are sufficient to deal with contamination issues on the site. One of
the informatives relating to the closure or diversion of a right of way has also been omitted. This
was originally attached as, on the application form, the applicants had stated that the development
would affect a right of way. The applicant has now however confirmed that this was an error and
that there is no right of way which would be affected by this proposal. I am therefore satisfied that
this informative can be omitted.
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing my report, I have received an additional three letters of objection to this application.
The issues raised relate to the increase in traffic, which I have already discussed in my report, and
loss of privacy as a direct result of the proposed apartments. It is important to note that the
apartments proposed as part of this scheme would be located within the heart of the site, and not in
close proximity to any of the existing houses in the surrounding area. The closest apartment block
would be a minimum of 100m from the properties on Pendlecroft Avenue. This distance is
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
sufficient to ensure that there would be no detrimental impact on the residents of these properties
in this regard. My recommendation therefore remains one of approval.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is currently disused and occupied only by trees and shrubs. The 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, beyond which is a playing field and an area of open land.
The proposed development comprises two phases. The 58 houses would be erected on Phase 1 and
the 96 apartments on Phase 2. There would be a total of 130 car parking spaces for the proposed
apartments. Each of the proposed dwellings would have a minimum of one off-street car parking
space, either through the provision of a garage or a driveway. Vehicular access into the site would
be achieved from Agecroft Road and a service road would then provide access to each of the
dwellings. Landscaping would be provided along the boundaries of the site with Agecroft Road
and Lumns Lane.
The application includes the provision of a footpath/cycle way through the site linking Agecroft
Road to the proposed Country Park. The footpath would be in the region of 10m wide. To the rear
of the site is a wooded area which would be retained and open to the public as an area of informal
open space.
SITE HISTORY
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 (ref: 04/47878/FUL). That
application is yet to be determined.
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
British Coal – no objections
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Director of Environmental Services – recommends a condition requiring details of noise
protection measures
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.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – comments received relating to contamination and a number
of conditions have been recommended
Environment Agency – no objections but recommends a condition requiring the provision and
implementation of a surface water regulation system in order to reduce the risk of flooding
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – no objections
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received to date
Network Rail – no comments received to date
Open Spaces Society – no comments received to date
Ramblers Association – no comments received to date
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – no comments received to date
PUBLICITY
The proposal has been publicised by way of press and site notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 – 30 (E) Agecroft Road
1-6 Park Lane West
4 – 7 Frankby Close
3 – 38 (E) Pendlecroft Avenue
Biffa Waste
1 – 7 Lock Keepers Mews
1 – 7 Kilcoby Avenue
1 – 7 Bolbany Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
I have received four letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. I have
also received one letter in support of the application from the owner of part of the site. The
following issues have been raised:
Increase in traffic
Loss of trees
Additional access onto Agecroft Road
Overlooking
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
PLANNING APPRAISAL
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
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 proposed Slack Brook Country Park; whether there would be an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the highway network as a result of the proposal; whether the
applicants 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 Replacement 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.
Adopted Policy H4 states that the Council will ensure that housing land capable of accommodating
6,000 dwellings is available for development between 1986 and 2001.
Adopted Policy EN5 states that the Council will seek to improve the environment for nature
through the identification, protection, improvement and promotion of an integrated network of
wildlife habitats and corridors.
Adopted Policy EN17 states that the Council is committed to conserving and improving the
Croal-Irwell Valley as a significant environmental, wildlife and recreational resource.
Adopted Policy EN23 outlines a number of factors on which particular emphasis will be placed
within the Croal-Irwell Valley. These include the control of unsympathetic industrial development
and the promotion of high standards of design.
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 EN7D states that development which would affect land which functions as a wildlife
corridor would not be permitted.
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,
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
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 allocated for residential development in the Adopted UDP. In addition, part of the site
benefits from an extant permission for the erection of 56 dwellings. That extant permission is an
important consideration in the assessment of the acceptability of this application. That scheme is
not of such a high standard as that currently under consideration. Due to the siting of the dwellings,
the scheme turns its back on both Agecroft Road and Lumns Lane and does not make satisfactory
provision for a footpath/cycle link through the site between Agecroft Road and the Country Park,
as required by Adopted Policy H9. The application currently under consideration includes
dwellings which front onto Agecroft Road, thereby presenting a more frontage to the street. It also
includes a footpath/cycle link, which will be discussed in more detail in a subsequent section of
this report.
I acknowledge that 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. I do not
however consider that the development of the site for residential purposes would be contrary to the
policies relating to the Croal-Irwell Valley or wildlife corridors. Whilst the development of the site
for residential purposes would not be in strict accordance with Draft Policy R4, I am of the opinion
that the weight to be attached to that policy is less than that to be attached to the extant permission.
I consider it preferable to allow the development of the site in the manner currently proposed than
that proposed by the extant permission, which the applicants have confirmed would be
implemented should permission not be granted for this scheme.
I am therefore of the opinion that the proposal complies with Adopted Policy H9 and I am
therefore satisfied that the principle of the proposal is acceptable.
Link to the Country Park
Adopted Policy H9/16 states that 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.
Adopted Policy T10 seeks to ensure that the needs of pedestrians throughout the city are given
greater attention by improving and developing pedestrian links between residential areas and
recreational areas.
Draft Policy A2 states development proposals will be required to make adequate provision for safe
and convenient access by cyclists and pedestrians.
The application proposes the provision of a footpath/cycle link through the site from Agecroft
Road to the proposed Country Park. The path would be in the region of 10m in width and would
include a pathway and landscaping. It is located so as to maximise natural surveillance and reduce
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
conflict between pedestrians and vehicles travelling within the site, but without prejudicing the
layout of the development. This element of the application has been amended in order to improve
pedestrian/cycle links to the Country Park, in accordance with Adopted Policy H9/16. The Section
106 Agreement requires full details of this link, including surface and boundary treatment, lighting
and landscaping, to be submitted, approved and implemented. It also requires this footpath to be
retained and made available for use by members of the public.
In light of the above, I am satisfied that the application accords with Adopted policies H9/16 and
T10 and Draft Policy A2 in this regard.
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 A1 requires planning applications for developments which would give rise to
significant transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport
assessment and, where appropriate, a travel plan.
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
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 accordance with Draft Policy A1, the applicants have submitted a Transport Assessment in
support of the application. I can confirm that I am satisfied that this proposal would not have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the highway network by virtue of traffic generation. I also
consider the proposed vehicular access point into the site from Agecroft Road to be acceptable,
particularly in light of the approval in 2000, which also proposed access from Agecroft Road. I am
therefore satisfied that the application accords with Adopted Policy T2 and Draft Policy A8.
In terms of car parking within the site, it is proposed to provide 130 parking spaces for the 96
apartments. I consider this level of parking to be acceptable. Off-street car parking for the
proposed houses would be provided either in the form of garages or driveways. I consider the
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
proposed level of car parking to be acceptable and I therefore consider that the application 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. As
with the footpath/cycle link, details of the provision of footpaths and lighting within the wooded
area are required by the Section 106 Agreement. The applicants would make a financial
contribution towards the provision of formal open space off-site, as well as towards the
maintenance of both the formal and informal open space. The level of contribution required has
been agreed by having regard to the contribution required as part of the extant permission, where a
maximum of £30,000 was agreed. I do however consider that the on-site provision and financial
contribution now agreed represents a fair and reasonable compromise and 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 submitted a site investigation report with the
application which has been considered by the GMGU. The site has been landfilled and is a gassing
site. The layout of the site has been influenced by the level of contamination and landfill gas. Phase
2 is more heavily contaminated than Phase 1 and therefore comprises solely of apartments. Having
received advice from the GMGU, 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
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
makes requirements of the applicants in respect of contamination. Given the previous permissions
for residential 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 dwellings 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
siting of the dwellings ahs also been amended in order to reduce any overlooking or loss of privacy
within the site itself. I am of the opinion that the application accords with Adopted Policy DEV1
and Draft Policy DES7.
I have attached a condition requiring samples of the materials of the proposed dwellings and
apartments to be submitted and approved. I am satisfied that this will ensure 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.
As well as attaching conditions requiring details of landscaping to the footpath/cycle link and
wooded area, I have attached a condition requiring details of landscaping within the remainder of
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
the site. I am satisfied that this will ensure that the landscaping meets the criteria of Draft Policy
DES9.
Other Issues
One objector is concerned regarding the loss of trees on the site. The previous applications also
necessitated the loss of the majority of the trees on the site and I had no objections to those
applications in this regard. 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.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Since the submission of the application, several amendments have been made to the scheme which
have resulted in improvements to the proposal. The footpath/cycle link has been enhanced to
improve linkages to Agecroft Road, in accordance with Policy H9. The layout of the site has been
amended so as to reduce loss of privacy and overlooking within the site. The applicants will also
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 a significant
improvement to the extant permission and would provide a satisfactory footpath/cycle link from
Agecroft Road to the proposed Country Park. It also proposed dwellings which face Agecroft
Road and which would therefore be a positive addition to the street scene. 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:
That Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below once the
legal agreement has been signed:
i.
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to: secure the payment of a
contribution to the provision of open space to the value of £154, 719; secure the submission
of a scheme for the layout, management and maintenance of both the wooded area and
footpath/cycle link; secure the implementation of such a scheme; to secure both areas are
available to members of the public in perpetuity; secure the establishment of a
Management Committee for the site responsible for all monitoring of landfill gas,
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
maintenance of gas control measures and remedial action; and to secure insurance bonding
for the site to cover the cost of any remedial work;
ii.
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning
permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
iii.
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject
to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal
agreement,
iv.
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the
aim and objectives of policies H6, H11, H9/16 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary
Development Plan
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for
the external elevations and roof of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials,
unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. 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
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.
4. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. 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
5. Standard Condition M01 Removal of Permitted Development Rights
6. 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
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
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.
7. 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 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
8. Before development is started 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Car parking within the site shall be laid out in accordance with the details shown on drawing
no. PEND-02-02 and shall be made available at all times
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Reason: In order to protect occupiers from landfill gas
6. Reason: In order to reduce the risk of flooding
7. To prevent future occupiers, prevent pollution and to assess the risks to the water environment
8. The site has been landfilled in the past and contains landfill gas and measures are required to
prevent this becoming a hazard to occupiers
9. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
10. Reason: In order to encourage waste recycling, in accordance with Policy MW11 of the
Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
11. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
3. The 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:
H9/16 - Sites for New Housing - Lumns Lane/Agecroft Road, Pendlebury (3.3ha); EN5 Nature Conservation; EN17 - Croal-Irwell Valley;
EN23 - Croal-Irwell Valley; 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 -
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Pollution Control; EN10 - Landscape
4. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
5. 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.
6. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the amended plan received on 3rd
August 2004 which shows the revised layout of the site and amendments to the footpath/cycle
way
7. The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities regarding the adoption of sewers and the
provision of a foul sewer pumping station
APPLICATION No:
04/48658/HYBEIA
APPLICANT:
North West Development Agency
LOCATION:
Agecroft Commerce Park (Phase 3), Lamplight Way Off
Agecroft Road Pendlebury Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Full application for the retention of the existing site remediation
and enabling works and new site infrastructure including roads,
landscaping and services and outline application for the provision
of B1,B2 and B8 accommodation
WARD:
Pendlebury
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
This application was deferred at the meeting on 17th February as Members requested more
information relating to the public transport contributions and contributions towards environmental
improvements in the neighbourhood.
A meeting has subsequently taken place with the applicants. They have agreed to increase the
contribution towards general public transport improvements from £45,000 to £61,000 and making
a contribution of £10,000 towards environmental improvements in the local area, in lieu of the
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
£5,000 they had originally agreed to contribute to the maintenance of grass verges. They will still
contribute £5,000 towards air quality monitoring. I have amended my original report below to
reflect these changes. My recommendation is therefore that the application be approved.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This site is located adjacent to the existing Commerce Park which was developed as part of phases
1 and 2. There are residential properties to the west of the site. Access into the commerce park is
achieved from Agecroft Road, to the north of the site.
The application is a hybrid application. The full aspect of the application seeks approval for the
retention of the existing enabling works and the implementation of infrastructure and landscaping.
The landscaping proposed includes tree and shrub planting along the roads within the site and
planting on the existing buffer which separates the site to be developed as part of this application
and the residential properties to the west.
The outline element of the application relates to the provision of B1 (Business), B2 (Industrial),
and B8 (Storage and Distribution) accommodation within the site. A maximum of 37,270sqm
would be provided within the site. All matters, except for access, are reserved for determination at
a later date. Although this element of the application is in outline, the applicant has submitted a
masterplan which shows the site divided into five plots. This indicates that each of the plots could
accommodate a mixture of B1, B2 and B8 uses. The units within this phase of the commerce park
would potentially operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. However, as the end users of the
units are unknown at this stage, this cannot be confirmed at present.
An environmental statement (ES) has been submitted with this application, in accordance with the
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1999. The ES deals with a number of issues,
including land, water, ecology and nature conservation, landscape, archaeology and cultural
heritage, noise and vibration, air quality, traffic and transport and socio-economic conditions. The
application has also been accompanied by a Transport Assessment.
SITE HISTORY
In June 2003 an outline application for the development of land for 20 speculative industrial units
(Class B1, B2 and B8) incorporating offices, car parking, hardstands, associated vehicular access,
external works and drainage was submitted. That application was withdrawn in December 2003 as
insufficient information had been submitted to enable the implications of the proposal to be
satisfactorily assessed.
CONSULTATIONS
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Director of Environmental Services – no objections to the application subject to a number of
conditions relating to noise
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received to date
Environment Agency – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – comments received. The site is not well
served by public transport. As part of the previous permission, the applicants were required to
make a financial contribution towards the provision/improvement of public transport facilities in
the vicinity. The GMPTE has recommended that the applicants make a contribution of £150,000
towards the provision of bus services in the area
Bury Metro – no objections
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – no objections to the application but has recommend
conditions requiring remediation statements to accompany reserved matters applications for each
of the plots
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – no objections to the proposal but recommends conditions
requiring an inspection of the site for ground nesting birds and a method statement for the removal
of Japanese knotweed
English Nature – no objections to the proposal but recommends a condition requiring the provision
of a nature conservation area within the site and the submission of a management plan
Countryside Agency – no objections
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – no comments received to date
Open Spaces Society – no comments received to date
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – requests a condition requiring that no development is
commenced until the appropriate order for the diversion of the right of way has been obtained
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – no comments received to date
Ramblers’ Association – no comments received to date
Government Office for the North West – receipt of consultation acknowledged but no additional
comments received to date
Lancashire Wildlife Trust – no comments received to date
United Utilities – no objections
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 9th July 2004
A press notice was published on 22nd July 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 15 Manor Lodge, Agecroft Road
73 – 75, 68 – 72 Dalton Drive
63, 65, 56 – 62 Deepdale Drive
2 – 56, 2A Dell Avenue
11, 12 Dauntesy Aveue
64 – 78 Park Lane West
2 – 110 Broomhall Road
1 – 5, 112 – 114 Bank Lane
31, 32 Minden Street
31, 32 Egmont Street
22 – 58 Enville Road
Units 1 – 18 Network Centre, Lamplight Way
Securicor, Nimans, Tallyman Way
Bunzl, Lamplight Way
Amber Shield, Canary Way
Units 1 – 23 Agecroft Enterprise Park, Shearer Way
Grosvenor House, Shearer Way
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received ten letters of representation in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues hove been raised:
Increase in traffic
Increase in noise
Increase in vibration
Increase in dust
Decrease in highway safety
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: UR4 – Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Site specific policies: EC10/2 – Major High Amenity Sites in Strategic Locations (Agecroft
Valley)
EN23 – Croal-Irwell Valley
EN17 – Croal Irwell Valley
Other policies: EC1A – A Balanced Portfolio of Sites (Major High Amenity Sites for High
Technology Industry in Strategic Locations)
T2 – Network of Major Roads of More than Local Importance
T4 – Public Transport
EN5 – Nature Conservation
EN20 – Pollution Control
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: E3/12 – Sites for Employment Development
Other policies: DES9 - Landscaping
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A8 – Impact on the Highway Network
ST3 – Employment Supply
EN14 – Pollution Control
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main planning issues relating to this application to be as follows: whether the
principle of the proposal is acceptable, whether there would be an unacceptable detrimental impact
on the amenity of neighbouring residents; whether the level of traffic generation would be
acceptable; whether there would be an unacceptable impact on the environment; and whether the
application accords with the relevant provisions of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement UDPs. I will deal with each matter in turn below.
Principle of the Proposal
Adopted Policy EC10/2 allocates the 51.2ha former Agecroft Colliery and former Brindle Heath
Junction site as a major high amenity site for high technology industry. The reasoned justification
states that the site is suitable for modern industrial development in accordance with the criteria set
out in Policy EC1A. It states that environmental considerations are particularly important given
the site’s location in the Croal-Irwell Valley and a manufacturing park with a strong environmental
theme is seen as an ideal use.
Adopted Policy EC1A states that the Council will seek to ensure the provision of an adequate
supply of land for industrial, warehousing, business and office development through the allocation
of approximately 340ha of land for employment purposes. It states that major high amenity sites
should be a minimum of 20ha, have existing or potential high quality public transport links and an
environmental setting and preferably be located in the urban area.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Adopted Policy EN17 states that the Council is committed to conserving and improving the
Croal-Irwell Valley as a significant environmental, wildlife and recreational resource.
Adopted Policy EN23 outlines a number of factors on which particular emphasis will be placed
within the Croal-Irwell Valley. These include the control of unsympathetic industrial development
and the promotion of high standards of design.
Draft Policy E3/12 identifies Agecroft Commerce Park, Pendlebury as a site for employment
development, in accordance with Policy ST3. The reasoned justification states that this allocation
covers residual land on the Commerce Park, where a number of employment developments have
taken place over recent years. The importance of protecting the amenity of neighbouring residents
would need to be protected as part of any development, as well as pedestrian access along the
western boundary of the site. It also states that improvements to the highway network may be
required.
Draft Policy ST3 states that a good range of local employment opportunities will be secured by:
maintaining an adequate supply and variety of land and buildings for employment purposes;
protecting and increasing the attractiveness of existing employment areas; enabling the
diversification of the local economy and using planning obligations to secure local labour
contracts and training opportunities.
In light of the fact that the site is allocated for employment development in both the Adopted and
Draft UDPs, I have no objections to the principle of this application. The proposal includes an
appropriate mix of uses within the site, in accordance with the above policies. The site is vacant at
present and this proposal would make efficient use of a previously developed site within the urban
area and would contribute to regeneration. The environmental aspects of the proposal will be
discussed in a subsequent section of this report.
Traffic
Adopted Policy T2 states that the Council will safeguard a Network of Roads of More than Local
Importance along which major traffic flows will be directed. 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 effectively with that impact. The A6044 Agecroft Road
is identified as one of these roads.
Adopted Policy T4 states that the Council will encourage greater use of public transport by
supporting improvements to the quality and attractiveness of services. Measures to do so include
seeking to secure planning agreements with developers for the provision of public transport
facilities and services.
Draft Policy A1 requires planning applications for developments which would give rise to
significant transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport
assessment and, where appropriate, a travel plan.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Draft Policy A8 updates Adopted Policy T2.
In accordance with Draft Policy A1, the applicants have submitted a Transport Assessment (TA)
with the application. I have assessed the TA and can confirm that I have no objections to the
planning application on highway grounds. I am of the opinion that the surrounding road network
has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic which would be generated as a result
of this application without having a detrimental impact on highway safety. I have attached a
condition restricting the overall level of floorspace within Phase 3 of the commerce park and the
total B2 floorspace in order to ensure that the highway network would not be detrimentally
affected by this proposal.
In accordance with Draft Policy A1, a travel plan has been submitted with this application. As the
development is speculative, the travel plan only discusses measures which could be included in
subsequent final travel plans, as well as good practice. It does not set targets or objectives. The
S106 Agreement however requires the submission of separate Green Travel Plans with each of the
reserved matters applications, as well as the implementation of the measures included in the travel
plans and their subsequent monitoring. I am satisfied that this complies with Policy A1.
In addition to the above, the applicants have also agreed to make a contribution towards general
improvements to public transport in the area. This would be to the total of £61,000.
The applicant has also entered into a S278 agreement to secure the provision of off-site highway
works which will mitigate any impact on the surrounding highway network. This includes the
signalisation of the Lumns Lane/Agecroft Road junction. I have attached a condition requiring the
works outlined in the S278 agreement to be undertaken prior to first occupation.
It is important to note that the developers of phase 1 of the commerce park made similar
contributions to public transport and off site highway works. Financial contributions of £90,000
towards public transport and £210,000 towards highway improvements, namely to the Agecroft
Road/Bolton Road junction, were agreed as part of that proposal. This application should therefore
be considered in this context.
In light of the above, I am of the opinion that the application accords with Adopted polices T2 and
T4 and Draft policies A1 and A8. I therefore have no objections to the application on highway
grounds.
Environment
Adopted Policy EN5 states that nature conservation will be a material consideration in evaluating
development proposals.
Adopted Policy EN17 states that the Council is committed to conserving and improving the
Croal-Irwell Valley as a significant environmental, wildlife and recreational resource.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Adopted Policy EN23 outlines a number of factors on which particular emphasis will be placed
within the Croal-Irwell Valley. These include the control of unsympathetic industrial development
and the promotion of high standards of design.
Draft Policy DES9 requires developments to incorporate appropriate hard and soft landscaping
provision, which must be of a high quality, reflect and enhance the character of the area, not detract
from safety or security, form an integral part of the development and have provision made for its
maintenance.
Adopted Policy EN20 states that developments which would cause an unacceptable increase in
noise, dust, air pollution or vibration, particularly around sensitive uses, including housing, will
not normally be permitted.
Draft Policy DES7 states that 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 EN14 updates Adopted Policy EN20.
The ES covered a number of issues and conclusions were made as to the likely impact of the
proposal on the environment. These will be discussed in turn as follows
v. Land
This section of the report considered topography, land use, geology and mining, land
contamination and waste management/raw materials. The proposed development was considered
to have a negligible effect on topography, land use, geology, with a slight to moderate negative
effect on ground contamination conditions and with respect to waste management and the use of
raw materials. Separate site investigation reports were submitted with the application, which were
assessed by the GMGU and it is recommended that a condition be attached to this permission
requiring the submission of remediation statements with each of the subsequent reserved matters
applications. I am satisfied that this is sufficient to ensure that future occupiers will not be
adversely affected by land contamination.
vi. Water
An assessment of the effects of the proposed development on the water environment, both
groundwater and surface water, was made. Slight negative effects on groundwater were
considered possible, with slight to moderate negative effects on surface water. These effects would
be mitigated through consultation with both United Utilities and the Environment Agency.
vii. Ecology and Nature Conservation
This section of the ES investigated the existence of a variety of species within and adjacent to the
site and the likely impact of the proposal on any species identified. The Greater Manchester
Ecology Unit has confirmed that there are no records of protected species within a 1km radius of
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
the application site. The Lancashire Badger Group confirmed that there are no known badger
records within a 5km radius of the site. No great crested newts or reptiles were found on the site
during the numerous surveys undertaken. Bats were observed by the railway bridge and the
southern end of the site. However that structure is unlikely to be affected by this proposal. No other
protected species were detected during the course of the surveys undertaken and the site was
considered unlikely to support either any UK or Greater Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan
priority species or habitats.
The statement concludes that overall, the loss of the habitats present on site, which are of no more
than local value, will be minor adverse.
I have not received any objections from any of the consultees regarding nature
conservation/ecology, although a number of conditions have been recommended, for example the
removal of Japanese knotweed and the inspection of the site for ground nesting birds prior to the
commencement of the development. I am therefore satisfied with the applicants’ assessment in this
regard.
viii.
Landscape and Visual
The views of local residents, travellers on surrounding roads and those using the recreational
facilities within the area were considered and it was concluded that the landscape and visual effects
relating to this development would be likely to be minor adverse or neutral. Any impacts would be
mitigated through infrastructure planting within the site, as shown on the submitted plans, planting
within each of the development plots, which will be the subject of separate applications and the
retention and management of the wooded area along the western edge of the site. This is the
subject of the S106 agreement and I am therefore satisfied with the applicants’ assumptions in this
regard.
ix. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
There are no sites of pre-historic or Romano-British date within the application site or the wider
area of search. The earliest recorded Mediaeval site in the area is Agecroft Hall, which was
dismantled and sold in 1926. However, a small part of the original site remains undeveloped and
marks the area of the hall. There are a number of post-mediaeval and modern sites within the
surrounding area. There are no listed buildings within the development area, although four were
identified within the study area. However, the proposed development would not be visible from
any of these buildings. It is considered that there would not be any significant adverse effects as a
result of the proposed development on sites or buildings of archaeological or cultural interest. I
therefore have no objections to the application in this regard.
x. Noise and Vibration
A number of noise-sensitive receptors were identified as being located within close proximity to
the proposed development, including properties on Dell Avenue and Broomhall Road. The ES
confirms that end users of the site or unknown, but that as the majority of the buildings would be
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
for light industrial/warehousing and distribution, they would be in use 24 hours a day, seven days
per week. An assessment of the likely impacts of the development on noise and vibration was
undertaken, particularly in relation to the residential properties identified above. It is concluded
that there would be an impact on the noise-sensitive receptors as a result of noise during both the
construction and operational phases of the proposed development, but that this impact could be
mitigated through the imposition of conditions. Hours of construction are controlled by separate
legislation and I have not therefore attached any conditions to the permission restricting the hours
of construction. I have received comments from the Director of Environmental Services in relation
to noise, and have attached a number of conditions which I consider will mitigate the impact of the
proposed development and ensure that neighbouring residents would not be unacceptably affected
as a result. These include restrictions on the maximum noise levels and the requirement for noise
assessments with reserved matters applications.
The ES concludes that there would be a neutral impact as a result of traffic-induced vibration. I
have not received any objections to the application in this regard from the Director of
Environmental Services and therefore do not consider that neighbouring residents would not be
unacceptably detrimentally affected by vibration.
xi. Air Quality
The application site is located within an Air Quality Action Plan Area and there has been concern
regarding the number of recent developments in the vicinity and whether they have contributed to
poorer air quality. Increases in air pollution can arise from the increasing numbers of vehicles
resulting from new developments. Given the site’s location, it is considered essential that the air
quality in the area is continually monitored. The applicants have therefore agreed to make a
financial contribution towards this monitoring over a five year period.
The Director of Environmental Services has provided comments in respect of air quality and is of
the opinion that the impact of the proposed development on air quality is likely to be minimal. In
view of this, and in light of the financial contribution to be made towards monitoring, I have no
objections to the application in this regard and consider that local residents will not be
unacceptably affected.
xii. Traffic and Transport
The likely impacts of the proposed development in this regard have already been discussed above.
The submission of Travel Plans, the implementation of measures contained within the plans and
their subsequent monitoring, as well and the off-site highway works and contribution to public
transport in the area will all serve to mitigate any adverse impacts of the proposal on the highway
network. I have no objections to the application in this regard.
xiii.
Socio-Economic
The final section in the ES investigates the impact of the proposed development on
socio-economic conditions. As the end users of the site are unknown at present, it is not possible to
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
confirm the numbers of jobs which would be created as a result of this proposal. However, given
the amount of floorspace which would be created, I consider it reasonable to assume that the
impact of the proposed development on employment would be positive. This is however balanced
against the impact of the proposal on recreation and leisure, given the site’s location within the
Croal-Irwell Valley. The development of this site for the uses proposed is considered to have a
minor adverse impact on recreation and leisure.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the overall impacts of the proposed development on the
environment are likely to be minor and I have attached conditions which would mitigate some of
these impacts. I am of the opinion that the economic and regenerative benefits that would be
accrued as a result of this proposal, such as job creation and the redevelopment of a vacant and
previously developed site, outweigh any minor negative impacts that the application may have on
the environment. In light of the conditions attached, I do not consider that this application would
have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. I am satisfied
that the application accords with Adopted Policy EN20 and draft policies DES7 and EN14.
Although the application would result in the redevelopment of a site within the Croal-Irwell
Valley, the principle of the development has already been accepted through the allocation of the
site for such uses in the Adopted UDP. The management of the bund would, in my opinion,
represent an important benefit of this proposal and would have the potential to provide habitats for
a range of species and enhance the area. I therefore have no objections to the application in this
regard.
Other Issues
Residents have also raised concerns regarding increases in dust and vibration as a result of this
proposal. I have however not received any objections from the Director of Environmental Services
in relation to dust and vibration and I therefore have no objections to the application in this regard.
VALUE ADDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT
As part of this application, the applicants are entering into a Section 106 Agreement. This includes
the contribution of £61,000 towards general improvements to public transport in the vicinity,
£5,000 towards the monitoring of air quality and £10,000 towards environmental improvements in
the area. The S106 agreement also requires the submission of green travel plans with each of the
reserved matters applications and the subsequent implementation of measure contained within the
plans and their ongoing monitoring. It also requires the ongoing maintenance of the woodland
areas within the site and the inclusion of a nature conservation area within the site which shall be
accompanied by a management plan. The applicants have also entered into a S278 agreement to
secure a number of off-site highway works.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the external appearance and landscaping of the development to be
acceptable. The proposed materials would ensure that the proposed building would be a positive
addition to the street scene and would not detract from the area. The proposed landscaping scheme
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
would be of a high quality and would not prejudice safety or security. I am therefore satisfied that
the application accords with Adopted policies DEV1 and DEV2 and Draft policies DES1 and
DES9. I therefore make the following recommendation:
Recommendation:
That Members resolve to enter into a Section 278 agrement to secure the provision of off-site
highway works at Lumns Lane/Agecroft Road.
That Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below once the
legal agreement has been signed:
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of £61,000
towards improvements to public transport in the area, £5,000 towards the monitoring of air
quality in the area, £10,000 towards environmental improvements in the area, the
submission, implementation and monitoring of green travel plans, and a management plan
for the woodland area/landscaped bund within the site;
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning
permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject
to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal
agreement,
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the
aim and objectives of policies
Conditions:
1. The development of the infrastructure and landscaping works must be begun not later than the
expiration of five years beginning with the date of this permission.
2. Application for approval of reserved matters for the B1, B2 and B8 accommodation must be
made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission and
the development must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:(a) the expiration of five years from the date of this permission; or
(b) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of
approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
3. The development of the B1, B2 and B8 accommodation shall not be started until full details of
the following reserved matters have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority:
- the layout of the site, including the disposition of buildings and roads and provision for
parking and servicing;
- plans and elevations showing the design of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted,
any existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk
positions, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment.
4. The rating level of noise emitted from any plant and machinery (fixed or mobile) and vehicles
on Plots 3, 4 and 5 and from site activities within those plots shall not exceed the existing
background level determined to be 40dBL A90 (1h) by more than 5dB (A) between 7.00am
and 11.00pm Monday to Sunday. The rating level of the noise emitted from the above shall not
exceed the existing background level determined to be 40 dBL A90 (5 min) by more than 5dB
(A) between 11.00pm and 7.00am Monday to Sunday. The noise levels shall be measured or
calculated at the front garden boundary of 30 Dell Avenue and the rear garden of 100
Broomhall Road. The measurement and assessment shall be made according to BS 4142 : 1997
"Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas".
5. The rating level of noise emitted from reversing alarms fitted to vehicles and fork lift trucks
either based at or visiting plots 3, 4, and 5 shall not exceed the existing background noise level
determined to be 40dBL A90 (1 minute) by -5 dB (A) at any time. The noise levels shall be
measured or calculated at the front garden boundary of 30 Dell Avenue and the rear garden
boundary of 100 Broomhall Road. The measurement and assessment shall be made according
to BS 4142 : 1997 "Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas".
6. Each reserved matters application for Plots 3, 4, and 5 shall be accompanied by a noise
assessment to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Housing that
the development hereby approved can comply with conditions 4, 5 and 7.
7. The maximum level of noise emitted from site activities on Plot 4 shall not exceed 60dBL
A(max) (F time weighting) between 11.00pm and 7.00am Monday to Sunday, as measured or
calculated at the front garden boundary of 30 Dell Avenue and the rear garden boundary of 100
Broomhall Road.
8. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, remediation statements
shall be submitted prior to first occupation and concurrent with the relevant reserved matters
application.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
9. The site shall be inspected for the presence of ground nesting birds prior to the commencement
of the development. Should nesting birds be discovered, the nests shall remain undisturbed
until after the birds have fledged.
10. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of a scheme for
the management, destruction and/or disposal of Japanese knotweed shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The management, destruction and/or
disposal of the above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.
11. The overall gross floor area within the site shall not exceed a maximum of 37,270 square
metres and the overall gross floor area of Class B2 development within the site shall not exceed
a maximum of 27,952 square metres
12. The provision of car parking spaces on the site shall not exceed a maximum of 692, a minimum
of 19 of which shall be for disabled people.
13. Provision shall be made for the storage of a minimum of 51 bicycles within the site
14. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until the appropriate order for the
closure or diversion of the public right of way affected by the development has been made.
15. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, none of the units hereby
approved shall be occupied unless and until the highway works at the junction of Lumns
Lane/Agecroft Road and Agecroft Road/Langley Road South detailed in the Section 278
Agreement have been completed
16. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, Plot 1 shall only be occupied by uses
falling within Class B1(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.
17. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, B1 uses within the site shall be
restricted to those falling within Class B1(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)
Order 1987.
Reason(s):
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
3. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
9. In order to protect nesting birds
10. Reason: to prevent the spread of invasive Japanese knotweed
11. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
12. In order to encourage the use of other modes of transport, in accordance with Policy A10 of
the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP
13. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes, in accordance with Policy
A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP
14. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
15. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
16. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
17. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
2. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
3. The applicant is advised
connections/alterations/easements
to
contact
United
Utilities
regarding
sewer
4. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the amended plans received on 29th
September 2004 and 1st November 2004 which show the changes to the landscaping
proposals and the uses for Plot 1.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
APPLICATION No:
04/49410/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr Feroz Bhaloda
LOCATION:
Motor Body Repairs Barlow Street Walkden
PROPOSAL:
Erection of rear extension to existing plant room including
installation of two extract flues projecting 2m above the ridge of
the roof.
WARD:
Walkden North
At the meeting of the panel held on the 17th February 2005 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
Since completing this report additional correspondence has taken place with one of the objectors
following a copy of the Panel report being forwarded to the objector. The following questions
have been asked:
1. If permission was refused in 1986 why then is the applicant being allowed to carry on using
the premises? He is currently using the building does he not have to get permission for that
use?
2. What steps have been taken by the Environmental Services to ensure this does not affect
residents enjoyment of their properties and what has the Director of Environmental
services based his opinion on? The objector questions how the Local Authority will be
made aware of whether the consumption of solvents would exceed 0.5tonnes in any 12
month period.
3. Which precise boundary of which property are you referring to in item (condition) 4 under
your recommendation?
4. Why has none of the considerations put forward by residents as to the impact of this
proposed development on them not been taken into consideration, bearing in mind the
daily ongoing problems we already experience from this and the other units there?
5. Has the applicant proved he has the knowledge to deal with and dispose of the hazardous
chemicals he speaks of in his application lawfully?
A request has been made for a full copy of the planning file to be
provided before the Panel meeting under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000. A further request has been made for consideration of the
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Planning application to be deferred to allow local residents to meet
with the Local Planning Authority and discuss the proposal.
Dealing with each of the issues in turn I have the following comments
to make:
Permission was refused for the sale of damaged repairable motor
vehicles (E/19900). This refusal does not affect the existing
operations which are carried out on site (i.e. motor body
repairs).
The main body of the report explains the legislative situation
with regard to car spray booths and solvent emissions. The
Solvent Emissions Directive only requires a permit if solvent
consumption exceeds 0.5tonnes in any 12 month period.
Consumption below this level is considered acceptable in terms
of its impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. The
Director of Environmental Services has informed me that he will
be investigating the level of consumption in the Summer by way
of serving notice on the applicant to request information to
establish the total Volatile Organic Compound content of
coating materials used in the first 3 months of operation, in
order to calculate the predicted consumption threshold for the
2005/2006 period.
Condition 4 refers to the boundary of the nearest residential
properties which are those on Hill Top Road.
All neighbours considerations have been fully taken into
consideration. Their concerns have been summarised in the
report and have been responded to.
There is no requirement under planning law for the applicant
to ‘prove’ that he has the knowledge to deal with and dispose
of ‘hazardous chemicals’ (volatile organic compounds).
However, as a matter of good practice I have attached an
informative for the applicant to contact the City’s
Environmental Services Directorate to discuss the procedures
when operating a car spray booth.
With regard to the objector’s request for a full copy of the planning
application file to be provided, there are procedures in place for
requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
This matter has been passed to Richard Preston who deals with requests
made under the Act. In addition, the planning file has been available
for inspection since October 2004.
The request for the application to be deferred is a matter for the
Panel Members to consider.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing motor body repairs workshop on Barlow Street, Walkden.
Barlow street is home to a small enclave of commercial uses including a scrap yard and a number
of garages.
To the west and south of the application site are commercial
properties located on Barlow Street.
To the east is a large
field/horse paddock and to the south of the paddock are playing
fields. To the north-west, approximately 35m away are residential
properties on Hill Top Road. Directly to the north, approximately
55m from the application site are further residential properties on
Hill Top Road. All of the properties on Hill Top Road are on land
which is approximately 3-5m higher in level.
The application is for the erection of a rear extension (6m x 6m) which would be used as a vehicle
spray booth. The proposal also includes the installation of two extraction flues which would rise
2m above the ridge of the proposed extension to a final height of 7.41m above ground level.
SITE HISTORY
In May 1986, an application was refused for the use of the premises for the sale of damaged
repairable motor vehicles (E/19900).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections, recommendations made for conditions.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
4-16 (even), 25-41 (odd) Hill Top Road
2 John Street
TAG Forklift Truck Services, unit 1 Barlow Street.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 5 letters of representation / objection from 4 different households in response to the
planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Smell, fumes and pollution affecting people’s health and amenities. Reference is made to
the Precautionary Principle (as detailed in the Rio Declaration) and the medical journal
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
‘The Lancet’. One of the objectors is of the opinion that there is insufficient information
with regards to health implications to determine this application.
Increased traffic.
Increased noise.
The chemicals stored could pose a fire hazard which would be difficult to control given the
poor access for the fire service.
The chimneys will look an eye sore, especially given the location of horse paddocks and
public playing fields which are in close proximity.
Wildlife will be spoilt if industrial links continue.
The only method of disposal of any hazardous and toxic waste chemicals is via the public
main which is not designed to cope with additional usage.
There is no access to the rear of the building where the extension is proposed other than via
a steep embankment. Increased noise, traffic and pollution would result during the
construction phase of the development.
The site is not designated in the UDP as an industrial site and there are more suitable sites
elsewhere in the city for such development.
The proposal would encroach onto a council owned Greenfield site that is designated as a
public open space.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
SD1 – The North-West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DP3 – Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV3 – Alterations/Extensions
EC4 – Improvements to Employment Areas
EC7 – Industry and Commerce in Residential Areas
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
E5 – Development Within Established Employment Areas.
EN14 – Pollution Control
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of development, the design
and quality of the proposed development and the impact of the development on the amenities of
neighbouring occupiers.
Principle of development
Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 (PPG1) prioritises the use of
previously developed land (brownfield) over that which has not been
developed (greenfield). Policy SD1 seeks to focus development within
the North-west Metropolitan Area which includes Salford and its
surrounding inner area.
Policy EC4 seeks to improve employers
operating conditions by encouraging the improvement of land and
premises and promoting the improvement of employment areas
generally. This is echoed in Policy E5.
The proposed extension would be contained within the applicant’s
curtilage which is brownfield land as defined by Annex C of PPG3.
The extension of the existing business would help ensure the future
of this employment use in accordance with Policy E5. Therefore, I
am satisfied with the principle of the development proposed.
Design and quality of the proposed development and the impact of the development on the
amenities of neighbouring occupiers
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 DEV3 requires all extensions to respect the parent building in terms of scale,
style and general design. Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its
physical context. Policy DP3 also supports good design in new developments.
The proposed extension would be modest in size and would be comparable in design to the
existing buildings located within the small enclave of commercial properties on Barlow Street. I
am therefore satisfied with the design of the proposed extension.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in determining
planning applications including the location and nature of the proposed development, including its
relationship to existing land uses, the potential level of air, water and other environmental
pollution including noise, nuisance and vibration, and the likely level of traffic generation. This, in
part, is reiterated in Policy DES1. Policy EN14 states that development which would contribute
towards a significant increase in air pollution will not be permitted unless they include mitigation
measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development proposed. 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.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
The Director of Environmental Services has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions
being attached. The majority of operations related to this development are/can be carried out
within the existing building without the need for planning permission. Planning permission is only
required for the extension and the flue. Taking into account the distances to the nearest residential
properties, I do not consider the proposal would result in significant detrimental impact on the
amenities of those residents by reason of fumes, pollution and smell.
The Director of Environmental Services has confirmed that if solvent consumption exceeds 0.5
tonnes in any 12 month period then the flue would have to be increased by 1m to satisfy the
Solvent Emissions Directive 1999/13/EC. If, however, consumption does not exceed 0.5tonnes it
does not require any permit under the Solvent Emissions Directive. The Solvent Emissions
Directive, implemented through the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Pollution
Prevention and Control Regulations 2000, aims to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds
(a health pollutant) from specified industrial Processes. For vehicle resprayers the consumption
threshold is 0.5tonnes. The Director of Environmental Services is monitoring the level of
consumption.
A condition has been attached to control the level of noise from the site. Sufficient evidence has
been submitted to consider the application and so the Precautionary Principle is not relevant.
I have no objections on traffic grounds. It is unlikely that the
proposal would result in a significant increase in traffic to the
area.
The objections relating to fire hazards are somewhat speculative. I do not consider the planning
authority is best placed to control the storage of what are relatively modest amounts of chemicals
on site. The relevant Health and Safety Regulations would be the most appropriate vehicle to
control such issues. Furthermore, the proposed spray booth has been designed to minimise the
occurrence of fire hazards. The design includes: ½ hour fire resisting structure for containment; all
stele construction with mechanical fixings; Personnel doors self close to ensure fire containment;
explosion relief panels (roof mounted, hinged and chained) and extract fan unit is conductive to
avoid static spark.
With regard to the disposal of hazardous and toxic waste via the
public main, this in fact is not accurate. No such waste would be
disposed of via the public drains. The only water that would be
disposed of via public drains would be rainwater. The Junair AF
vehicle spraybooth proposed would remove/contain any toxic
materials.
The is no evidence to suggest that wildlife would be affected by the
development.
With regard to the penultimate objection, the applicant has a right to apply to extend his business.
This application should therefore be considered on its merits.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Any disturbances caused during the construction phase would be relatively short lived and are, in
my view, an acceptable consequence of the development.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Following discussion and negotiation with the applicant, the design of the proposal was amended
to take account of the need for extraction equipment and additional details of the spray booth were
submitted for consideration.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of development, the design
and quality of the proposed development and the impact of the development on the amenities of
neighbouring occupiers. I am satisfied with the principle of development and the design proposed.
I do not consider the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents/occupiers. The proposal is in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan
and all other material considerations.
RECOMMENDATION:
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 roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
3. No development shall take place until all reasonable steps have been taken to investigate the
presence or otherwise of landfill gas, and migrating landfill gas affecting the site. A copy of
the results and method of the site survey shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority,
and if the presence of landfill gas is confirmed development shall not commence until
satisfactory remedial measures have been agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Details of
the site survey methodology, and remedial measures shall be submitted prior to the
commencement of development.
4. Noise from any fixed plant or equipment (Laeq,t) shall not exceed the background level
(La90,t) as measured at the boundary of the nearest residential properties at any time.
Reason(s):
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This approval relates to the amended plans that were received on 21st December 2004 and
which show two extraction flues that project 2m above the ridge of the roof of the the building
hereby approved.
2. The applicant should contact Stephanie Bierwas (0161 925 1217) from the Environmental
Services Directorate to discuss matters relating to the operation of the car spray booth to gain a
full understaning of best practice.
APPLICATION No:
04/49629/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Steven Denneny
LOCATION:
Barton Moss Farm Cottage Twelve Yard Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension and rear conservatory and
raised decking area
WARD:
Irlam
Since deferment the disproportionate issue has been revisited and
legal advice sought.
As stated previously matters such as the increase in floorspace and
the size and scale of the original dwelling and the proposed extension
need to be considered when determining whether an extension to a
property in the Green Belt is disproportionate. A large increase in
floorspace alone does not automatically mean that an extension is
a disproportionate addition that would be inappropriate within the
Green Belt.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
The 78% increase in floorspace created by the proposed extension
suggests that the proposed extension maybe disproportionate, as it
would result in a significant increase in the size of the building.
The application has two distinct elements. The conservatory and the
two-storey side extension. The conservatory, which amounts to a 12%
increase in floorspace is clearly subordinate to the original
dwelling and is appropriate development in the Green Belt.
The two-storey side extension would amount to a 66% increase. The
ridgeline of the proposed two-storey side extension would however
be 0.55m lower than the ridgeline of the original dwelling and
therefore despite making the property appear double fronted it would
be clearly evident that part of the dwelling was an extension. The
extension would, due to the difference in ridge heights, be
subordinate to the original dwelling. On balance I do not feel that
it would amount to a disproportionate addition to the property.
Consequently the proposed development would not constitute
inappropriate development within the Green Belt, as it would not harm
its openness. For that reason the proposed extension is in accordance
with Government advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note
No.2, Policies EN1, EN2 and EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and Policies EN1 of the Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Plan and therefore I recommend that the application be
approved.
************************************************************************
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property on Barton Moss.
The property occupies a fairly isolated position within the Greater
Manchester Green Belt, the only other buildings in the vicinity are
a cluster of farm buildings that are located to the north west of
the site.
The application is for the erection of a two-storey side extension,
a rear conservatory and raised decking area, which would result in
a 78% increase in floor space.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Maine Road Cottages, Twelve Yards Road
Barton Moss Farm, Twelve Yards Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
Councillor Jones has requested that panel consider this application, as there are special
circumstances in this case.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN1 – Green Belts
EN2 – Development Within The Green Belt
EN22 – Green Belt
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN2 – Development Affecting the Green Belt
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issue relating to this application is whether the proposal constitutes
inappropriate development within the Green Belt, and, if so, whether there are any very special
circumstances sufficient to overcome the presumption against inappropriate development.
Policy EN2 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy EN1
of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan seek to preserve the
character of the Green Belt by maintaining a presumption against
inappropriate development within it. They do however state that
limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings
maybe acceptable within the Green Belt so long as they would not
result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the
original dwelling. In order to understand how to determine whether
an extension is disproportionate matters such as the size and scale
of the original dwelling and the proposed extension need to be
considered. For them not to be disproportionate additions extensions
should be subordinate to the size and scale of the original dwelling
and they should not significantly or materially alter the character
of the dwelling.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
The proposed two-storey side extension and the rear conservatory would result in a 78% increase
in floorspace. The proposed extension is therefore significant in scale – the two-storey extension
would result in a considerable increase in the bulk of the building, altering the form/character of
the cottage by making it appear “double fronted”. The proposed extension would not therefore be
subordinate to the original dwelling. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the extension would
result in a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling and therefore the proposed extension
is inappropriate development within the Green Belt, the impact of which is magnified by the
isolated position of the property on a flat plain where there is an absence of any screening.
Planning Policy Guidance Note No.2 on Green Belts states that inappropriate development should
not be approved, except in very special circumstances and that very special circumstances to
justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness,
and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
The agent has listed 2 dwellings within the vicinity of the application site that have been
significantly extended. The adjoining property has had a similar two-storey side extension and
Manor Farm in the north has also been extended. There is not however any planning history on
either of these properties and therefore neither case indicates that the proposed extension should be
approved.
The agent has also submitted a statement within which he acknowledges that the proposals
contravene policy but there are, in this instance, very special circumstances to overcome the harm
the extension would cause to the openness of the Green Belt. He states how the applicant is a full
time farmer who farms over a thousand acres of arable land who has a young, expanding family
and needs the extension to create more accommodation for them. It is alleged that Green Belt
policy and the restrictions it places on his ability to extend his property threatens his base for a
sustainable livelihood and future family requirements. Whilst I acknowledge the applicants desire
to extend/improve their property I do not consider that the submitted case for very special
circumstances satisfies the demanding test for very special circumstances outlined above and
therefore an exception to the very strict control of development within the Green belt should not be
made in this instance. None of the factors presented are sufficient to outweigh the significant harm
the proposal would have on the openness of the Green Belt.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development would be a disproportionate addition to the existing dwelling. As such
it would be an inappropriate development within the Green Belt, which would therefore, by
definition, be harmful to the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to Government advice
contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note No.2, Policies EN1, EN2 and EN22 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policies EN1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
Plan. I therefore recommend that the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
1. Standard Condition A01 Five 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 Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
04/49654/FUL
APPLICANT:
Co-operative Financial Services
LOCATION:
Former Stowell Memorial Playing Fields Montford Street
Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Creation of community recreational facility to include two youth
shelters, kickabout court and skate park together with separate
surfaced 74 space car park with new vehicular access from
Thurlow Street
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This planning application relates to the former Stowell Memorial playing field and comprises two
main elements. The first is the development of around 63% of the site for a community recreational
facility, which will include a kick about court, youth shelters, a skate park and open play area. The
remaining 37% of the site would be developed as a 74 space car park for use by the near by Co-op
Bank. The land is owned by the City Council and the car park area would be leased to the Co-op
Bank.
Pedestrian access gates will be provided to the recreation area and damaged railings replaced.
Existing railings to the car park area will be replaced with 2.1 metre high railings. Floodlighting
will be installed within the car park and recreation areas and CCTV will be provided to the car
park.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Vehicular access to the car park will be from Thurlow Street. Vehicular access would be barrier
controlled and pedestrian access to the car park would be card controlled.
The field is generally flat, with mounding to the boundaries. There are trees and shrubs to the
boundaries of the site. The submitted plans indicate that a number of the existing trees and shrubs
would be removed.
There are no dwellings adjoining the site. To the north of the site is the Territorial Army site, to the
east is the Stowell Technology Centre, to the south is a timber yard and to the west are vacant
industrial units. The closest dwellings are located on Quay View, Chambers Field Court and
Howard Street.
SITE HISTORY
04/48186/FUL - Creation of community recreational facility to include two youth shelters, all
weather pitch and skate park together with separate surfaced car park. Application withdrawn.
03/45924/FUL - Construction of community recreational facility to include two youth shelters, all
weather surface football pitch and skate park. Approved 22.05.2003.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – A note to the developer recommended regarding
contaminated land. Play areas should be sited at least 30 metres away from the nearest noise
sensitive properties.
Sport England – A large proportion of the playing field site will be lost to provide a 74-space car
park to support (via a lease) the further development of Co-operative Bank facilities at Olympic
Houses and Montford House. Sport England do not generally support ‘enabling’ development of
this nature, since it reduces the land use area available for sport. Having visited the site, it is clear
in this instance that the playing field is not in formal use as a sports pitch, and has not been
maintained as such for some time. The site is subject to a high level of vandalism, large areas of the
pitch surface having been burnt away in recent years. A playing pitch assessment for Salford City
Council (published in January 2000) did not recognise the Stowell Memorial pitch as a playing
field, and it was not included within the assessment. This assessment concluded that, for Salford
district, no shortfall in senior or junior playing pitches could be identified – several pitch sites
being under-utilised. No dedicated provision for mini-soccer was identified in the area, and there
was considered to be demand for three such pitches. The layout proposed for the community
recreation facility at Stowell Memorial Field would include a seeded play area of sufficient size to
accommodate such a pitch. Given the written justification submitted, Sport England is satisfied
that the proposal meets their policy in that the proposed development is for an outdoor sports
facility, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to
outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the playing field. A condition is recommneded to
ensure that the proposed recreation facilities are made available prior to the commencement of use
of the proposed car parking. A floodlighting scheme is recommended.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit - Concern expressed over the resulting
inability of staff to watch over their own vehicles and also concern regarding confusion of uses that
may result from the car parks close proximity to a public amenity space. Recommend the clear
definition and separation of land uses with the proposed car park to be fully bounded behind
boundary to a height of 2.1m. together with access controlled gating incorporating secure entry
and exit controls. Natural surveillance over the site should be maximised and in particular the
proposed youth shelter and recommend all attempts to achieve this, e.g. visually permeable
boundaries, thinning out of shrubbery and adequate lighting with an even uniformity.
Strategic Director of Housing and Planning - From the additional information supplied, the
parking seems to be within the maximum levels. Evidence of a travel plan, and an indication that
other sites have been looked at has also been provided.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 16th December 2004
A site notice was displayed on 13th December 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
G E Robinson, Montford Street
Sitec training, Montford Street
32, 2, 4, Montford Street
Territorial Army, Eccles New Road
32 – 48 (e) Howard Street
7 – 11; 15 – 18 Lord Byron Square
22 – 24 (e); 2 – 8 (e) Thurlow Street
1 – 22 Chambersfield Court
2 – 22 (e) Quay View
1 – 27 (o) Quay View
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:the timber yard business has asked on a number of occasions to buy the land off the City
Council, but has been told that it was not available and should remain in recreational use.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: R12/1 – Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: R6/10 – New and Improved Recreation Land and Facilities
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the development
is acceptable, whether the proposal would result in any loss of amenity to residents in the locality;
the visual appearance and design of the proposed development and design and crime
considerations.
Principle of the development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. Government policy seeks to guide new
development to brownfield or previously developed sites. This is reflected in Policy ST11 of the
Replacement UDP, which is concerned with the location of new development, preferring existing
buildings and brownfield or previously developed land for development before greenfield or
previously undeveloped land is considered. As the site is currently laid out as a playing field with
goal posts and has a recreational use, it would not be considered previously developed land in
accordance with the definition in paragraph 14 of PPG17. Policy ST11 does provide a list of
circumstances in which the development of greenfield land may be acceptable, one of which
provides for development, if suitable replacement greenfield land would be created elsewhere in
the local area, of at least equal quality and quantity. While these proposals will not replace the
0.223ha of land that is to be lost to the car park, it will provide a far higher quality recreational
space, along with funds for maintenance secured through the lease agreement with the City
Council (lump sum and annual contribution through the lease agreement), than what is there at
present. This may go some way towards meeting this particular criterion of Policy ST11.
Paragraph 10 of PPG17 states that “Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land
should not be built on unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open
space or the buildings and land to be surplus to requirements… In the absence of a robust and
up-to-date assessment by a local authority, an applicant for planning permission may seek to
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
demonstrate through an independent assessment that the land or buildings are surplus to
requirements.” The applicants have stated in their submitted planning statement that the
surrounding area is identified in the councils Urban Open Space Strategy (UOSS) as an area
deficient in children’s play areas. It is therefore the applicants belief that this deficiency can be met
by the creation of the teenage shelters, kick about court and skate park and therefore paragraph 10
of PPG17 is satisfied, as a need for such a facility has been proven, and would be of such quality as
to outweigh the loss of around 1/3rd of the Stowell Memorial playing fields for the car park
proposals.
A further criterion of ST11 is to demonstrate that there is a need to develop the greenfield site that
cannot be fulfilled by any existing facilities or brownfield land. The supporting statement states
that the Co-op Bank wishes to relocate staff from other premises and create approximately 80 jobs
at their Montford House and Olympic House premises, which are not occupied to their full
capacity. At present, there is a problem with car parking capacity, with Montford House having 34
spaces and Olympic House 64 spaces. This lack of car parking provision encourages on street
parking, the restrictions on which have just been increased in the area. The supporting statement
indicates that the Co-op Bank has considered the possibility of alternative sites for development
and have also reviewed existing public parking facilities. They conclude that none of the
alternatives are considered suitable as they are not within walking distance of the site. The Co-op
Bank has also confirmed that they are actively pursuing a Green Travel Plan and have submitted a
copy of their stage 1 analysis as evidence of this.
The applicant has provided details of floorspace to parking ratio at present, which equates to 1
space per 71 m2. The provision of the proposed car park would result in a ratio of 1 space per 43
m2. This will not exceed the maximum car parking provision standards set out in the Appendix of
RSS and Appendix 3 of the Replacement Plan. The Co-op Bank does not consider it appropriate to
provide disabled persons parking and cycle parking within the proposed car park as this would be
remote from their premises. Details have, however, been submitted which indicate that 9 disabled
spaces and a shelter for 26 cycle parking spaces and 7 motorcycle parking spaces would be
provided at the existing premises, in accordance with Appendix 2 of the Review UDP.
I am therefore satisfied that a sequential approach has been adopted and a sufficient need proven to
be in accordance with Policy ST11 of the Review UDP.
I consider that the recreation element of the proposal would be in accordance with adopted UDP
policy R12/1 and Replacement Plan R6/10 policy which seek to improve and develop such sites
for either formal or informal recreational use and state that this particular site offers the potential to
provide a valuable facility for both organised junior football and a local kick-about area.
Impact on Amenity and Design and Crime
Policy DEV1 states that regard will be had to a number of factors in determining applications for
planning permission, including the location and nature of the proposed development, including its
relationship to existing and proposed land uses and the visual appearance of the development.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission for new
development unless it is satisfied with the quality of design.
With regards to the amenity of neighbouring residents, the proposed kickabout area would be at a
distance of approximately 60 metres from the closest dwelling and there would be in excess of 100
metres between the closest dwellings and the skate park. I do not therefore consider that there
would be any detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents from noise originating
from these uses. The design of the proposed railings is in keeping with the existing boundary
treatment of the site. The siting that has been selected for the car park area is such that it would
maximise the amount of landscaping/ ‘green’ space remaining along the main site frontage.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 require development to be designed to minimise the risk of crime and
Supplementary Planning Guidance – Designing Out Crime encourages natural surveillance for
new developments. The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit has raised some
strong concerns with regards to secure by design considerations and as a result, the applicant has
made a number of amendments to the proposed development which I consider address most of
these concerns, these include the raising of the height of the fencing to the car park area to 2.1
metres, the proposal to thin out some of the shrubs and tree planting to the boundaries to allow
improved natural surveillance and the provision of a CCTV and lighting scheme.
With regards to the objection raised, I do not consider this to be a material planning consideration.
I can confirm that part of the site has been marketed in the past by the City Council for a potential
car park use, with the requirement that a financial contribution would be secured by a legal
agreement for the enhancement and maintenance of the recreation facility.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Plans have been amended to incorporate secure by design recommendations
CONCLUSION
The site is presently in a poor condition and has been used for fly tipping and has become
unsuitable for formal recreational use. The proposed development would enable a high quality
recreational facility to be provided at the site. I consider that the sequential approach has been
followed and that the Co-op Bank has demonstrated that a green travel plan would be ineffective in
completely meeting the travel requirements of staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The approved community recreation facilities shall be constructed in accordancea with the
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
appoved plans and specification prior to the first use of the car park hereby approved.
3. The railings, gates, fencing to kickabout area and youth shelters hereby approved shall be
treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the
development by the Local Planning Authority.
4. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use that part of the site to be used by
vehicles shall be laid out, drained, surfaced and sealed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority.
5. No development shall be started until full details of the design, colour treatment and direction
of the proposed floodlighting have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Such details shall ensure that all lighting points away from the
surrounding residential properties.
6. This permission shall relate to the amended plans and additional information received on 24th
January 2005.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To ensure that adequate provision is made for recreation facilities within the curtilage of the
site in accordance with policy R12/1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
5. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. 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
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
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 Adviser, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the
Directorate of Environmental Services (Tel: (0161) 737 0551).
2. Detail of the car park drainage will be required and connections to the sewer to United Utilities
approval. A bypass interceptor should be included in the proposal. No land drainage should
discharge to the main sewer.
3. Any disused access points shall be made up at the developer's expense.
4. The proposed kick-about court be constructed in accordance with the following Sport England
design guidance notes: "A Guide to the Design, Specification and Construction of Multi-Use
Games Areas (MUGAs), including multi-sport Synthetic Turf Pitches (STPs)" (The
publication can be found on the Sport England web site www.sportengland.org or ordered by
telephone on 0870 5210 255).
5. 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:
04/49763/ADV
APPLICANT:
Idea Limited
LOCATION:
Former Brown Brothers Building, Bounded By East Ordsall
Lane, Egerton Street And Trinity Way Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Display of externally illuminated PVC mesh advertising banner
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Brown Brothers Building located at the junction of East
Ordsall Lane, Egerton Street and Trinity Way, Salford 3. The application site is located within the
Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area. This area is also an Environmental Improvement
Corridor. The site is a large detached building located at the junction of a main arterial route into
the City. The proposal seeks consent to display a 50m long by 8m high advert that is located on the
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
East elevation of the building for a period of 12 months. The advert is located approximately 3.4m
above ground level and is illuminated by way of lighting attached to the scaffold above the advert.
SITE HISTORY
The site has had three previous planning applications for consent to display adverts
(94/32227/ADV, 96/35369/ADV and 04/48451/ADV). All three applications were refused due to
the proposal having a detrimental impact on the street scene and the character of the area. In 1999
an appeal was allowed by the Planning Inspectorate against the Council’s refusal of the 1996
application to display a 1x48 sheet poster board. Consent was granted for the advert to be
displayed for a period of two years.
CONSULTATIONS
The Strategic Director of Housing and Planning has raised the following issues:
Large-scale commercial advertisement hoardings are not encouraged within the Chapel
Street Regeneration Strategy Area, as the aim is to create a high quality environment.
The application conflicts with Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP Policy DEV2.
The advert is visible from outside the immediate area.
The advert does not contribute to the overall regeneration of the area and has a negative
impact on the improvements being made to the Chapel Street Corridor.
The advert is detrimental to the visual amenity and is an obtrusive element in the street
scene.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 23rd February 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
219 to 249 Chapel Street, Salford
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN18 Environmental Improvement Corridors
DEV2 Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the size and siting of the proposal and the
impact upon the former Brown Brother’s Building, the street scene and the character of the area.
PPG19 Outdoor Advertisement Control states that posters mounted on to buildings should respect
the size and scale of the building and should not be overly large to dominate the building it is
mounted on. Adverts mounted on the side of buildings should also appear as an integral feature to
the existing building.
Draft Policy DEV2 relates to advertisements and states that consent will not be granted where such
adverts would have an unacceptable impact on amenity.
The proposal is highly visible in its location on the side of the building and is not in scale to its
surroundings. There are other adverts displayed on the opposite side of the Inner Relief Route on
the temporary car park but these do not have consent and should not be considered to set a
precedent for the advert proposed by this application. As such the proposal is considered to
constitute a strident feature in the street scene and is out of character with the area. The proposal is
not considered to be an integral part of the building and detracts from the character and
appearance. As such the proposal is considered contrary to DEV2.
Draft Policy EN18 requires all developments located along any of the City’s major road corridors
to make a positive contribution to the corridor’s environment and appearance. The proposal is sited
in a prominent location at the junction of the A6 and The Inner Relief Route. The junction forms a
major gateway into both the City of Salford and the Chapel Street Regeneration Area. As such the
building occupies a very significant site. The advert does not reflect the importance of the location
and detracts from the appearance of the area and the appearance of the existing building. As such
the proposal is considered contrary to EN18, which requires a development to have particular
regard to elevational treatments and the impact on views. Due to its size, the proposal is an
obtrusive feature in the street scene and is highly prominent.
The current proposed differs from the previous application in that the agent has illustrated that the
proposal could be partially used for the display of an advert for the Salford City Council. I do not
attach any weight to this element as the Local Planning Authority has no controls over the content
of the adverts of the applicant’s case.
The aim of the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy is to create a high quality environment for the
Chapel Street corridor and new development is already contributing to achieving this objective.
Any large-scale commercial advertisement banners, whether existing or proposed, are not
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
encouraged, if they form an obtrusive element in the street scene and detract from the amenity of
the area.
The site for the proposed display of the banner was the subject of a previous application (48451)
which was refused planning permission ‘due to its size and location, the advertisement is a highly
visible and obtrusive feature in the street scene and has an unacceptable detrimental impact on the
character and appearance of the building on which it is displayed and on the amenity and
character of the area’. Therefore, the proposal for the display of the advertisement banner is in
conflict with replacement UDP Policy DEV2. The positioning of the hoarding together with
illumination will be seen from Trinity Way and Chapel Street therefore its impact will be a lot
wider.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the advert has an unacceptable detrimental impact on the character and
amenity of the area and on the former Brown Brother’s Building itself. It is a highly visible and
obtrusive feature and is contrary to Draft Polices DEV2 and EN18.
As this proposal is exactly the same size as the previous application which was refused in 2004. I
do not consider there are any different circumstances in determining this application. As such I
consider this application unacceptable as recommend refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Due to its size and location, the advertisement is a highly visible and obtrusive feature in the
street scene and has an unacceptable detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the
building on which it is displayed and on the amenity and character of the area. The application is
therefore contrary to Policy DEV2 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP.
APPLICATION No:
04/49804/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr C Ullet
LOCATION:
Site At 11 To 13 Frederick Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing building and erection of a three storey
building to provide 24 apartments together with associated car
parking
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing industrial unit on Frederick Road close to its junction with
Strawberry Road and to the immediate south of the railway. The area is mixed in nature with
industrial uses to the north and east beyond the railway, University buildings on the other side of
Frederick Road to the east and residential development immediately adjacent to the south to the
north-west and west. The site lies within the Charlestown and Lower Kersal New Deal for
Communities (NDC) regeneration area and close to the A6.
The site comprises a single storey building and yard. The yard is occupied by cars and car parts
and there does not appear to be any regular use of the site.
It is proposed to erect a three-storey building comprising 16 flats. The building would
approximately follow the footprint of the existing building. The building would have a flat roof
and would be just 1.2 m higher than the surrounding residential properties. It would be 16.6m at its
closest to existing habitable room windows in houses on Gerrard Street at first floor level and
18.1m at second floor level. There would be no windows facing the rear of houses on Gerrard
Street. It would be 16m away from habitable room windows in houses on Nichols Street at both
first and second floor level. These windows would not directly face each other though but would
be angled to each other. The development would also be 7m from the gable end of the terrace of
hoses on Nichols Street. There are secondary and non-habitable room windows in this elevation
that currently face the industrial building. This development would be further away from this
gable elevation. There would be habitable room windows on the ground floor of this development
that would face this elevation. At first floor the habitable room windows face Frederick Road.
A total of eight car parking spaces would be provided with an access off Frederick Road. It is
proposed to face the building in brick at ground floor, render at first floor and timber to the second
floor. The top floor is set back from both the main Frederick Road frontage and the two gable ends.
Refuse and recycling facilities and eight cycle stands are also provided within the site.
A number of detailed design improvements have been made since the application was submitted.
SITE HISTORY
In December 2003 an application to change the use of the existing warehouse and offices to a
sauna and massage facility was refused (03/47231/COU). It was alleged that the use had already
commenced.
In December last year an application for 32 apartments was withdrawn as a result of my concerns
regarding the development (04/49131/FUL).
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Had a number of strong concerns and
considered that the application for 24 units represented overdevelopment of the site and
recommended that the application be refused.
United Utilities – No objections but provided advice.
Environment agency – No objections but provides advice and asks that a condition be attached
regarding contamination on the site.
New Deal for Communities Team – No response to date
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends that conditions be attached
regarding noise and contaminated land.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of site and press notices
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2-10 Gerrard Street
1 to 15 and 12 to 20 Nichols Street
Salford University
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas,
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 Meeting Housing Needs, DEV1 Development Criteria, EC3 – Reuse of Sites
and Premises, DEV2 Good Design
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: ST11 Location of New Development, H1 Provision of New Housing Development,
DES1 Respecting Context, E5 Development Within Established Employment Areas, DES7
Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the development is acceptable in
principle, particularly with regard to its density, whether the design of the building is acceptable
and whether it has an acceptable effect on future and neighbouring residents.
Principle of development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. The development would see the re-use of
brownfield land thus complying with criteria 1b of Policy ST11 and the guidance contained within
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 – Housing (PPG3), which seeks to prioritise the development of
such land over land that has not been previously developed (greenfield land).
Policy EC3 states that, where existing non-retail commercial premises become vacant, the city
council will seek to re-use or redevelop them for similar uses except where one or more of three
criteria are satisfied. The first criterion states that development must not result in a material or
unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites available for economic development and the third states
that alternative development is acceptable where there is a strong environmental case for
rationalising land uses. Draft policy E5 states that planning permission will only be granted for
the re-use or redevelopment of sites within an established employment area for non-employment
uses where the development would not compromise the operating conditions of other remaining
employment uses and where one or more of a number of criteria apply. Those criteria relevant in
this instance are where the developer can clearly demonstrate that there is no current or likely
future demand for the site or building for employment purposes or where there is a strong
environmental case for rationalising land uses. Development of this land would result in the loss
of a small commercial site located in a mixed area but in very close proximity to residential
development. I therefore consider that the proposed development satisfies both relevant criteria of
both policy E3 and draft policy E5.
In 2004 the City Council commissioned a study into employment provision across the City. This
recommended that the Council should protect and maintain the City’s existing allocated
employments sites to maintain an adequate supply of employment land, but as this application site
is not part of a wider industrial/employment area and is so small, I am satisfied that its loss to
residential purposes would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the city’s overall
employment land supply.
The density of the development has been reduced by 50% since the first application for 32 flats
was submitted. While this still results in a density in excess of 200 units per hectare I do not
consider that in practice it represents an overdevelopment of the site. The site is close to the A6 a
major public transport route into the regional centre, and within walking distance of Salford
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Crescent railway station. I consider therefore that in this instance the density of development is
acceptable.
Effect on neighbouring residents
Adopted Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when
determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to
its surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision.
Draft policy DES7 states that all new development will be required to provide potential users with
a satisfactory level of amenity and that development will not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers of other developments.
The existing and previous uses undoubtedly had a detrimental effect on neighbouring residents. I
am aware that the Director of Environmental Services has received regular complaints about
barking and excrement, both caused by dogs that are kept on the site. With regard to the windows
in the gable end of Nichols Street the proposed development would be further away than the
existing industrial building and as the windows in the gable elevation are secondary or
non-habitable room windows I consider than on this awkwardly shaped site that this is acceptable.
I consider therefore that in principle a residential development of this site is desirable.
The scheme has been significantly amended with regard to the effect on neighbours. I consider
that adequate separation distances have now been achieved and I am satisfied now that the scheme
represents an acceptable compromise.
Design
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.
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.
The proposed building is just 1.2m higher than neighbouring dwellings and the second floor is set
back from the main building frontage and the gable ends. I consider that now that further
amendments have been made, as a result of my concerns, the design of the building is acceptable.
While it would comprise a modern design, I do not consider that it would be out of character with
the surrounding area.
Living Conditions of Future Residents
At ground floor level the rear elevation would contain habitable room windows to ground floor
apartments 1-3 which would be located 7m from the gable wall of existing properties. This does
not meet the Council’s standards which require a separation distance of 13m. The benefits of this
layout would be that these apartments would have their own private amenity space and that
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
non-habitable room windows would directly face a public highway at ground floor level. The
alternative arrangement for this apartments, which is illustrated by apartment 4, would be to have
all the habitable room windows fronting Frederick Road. Whilst these would be meet the
Council’s separation distances, they would comprise high level windows for crime prevention
reasons – a design feature which is not normally encouraged due to the limited outlook that future
residents would experience. Although the proposed layout for apartments 1-3 does not meet the
Council’s normal standards, I consider that the complexities of this small, awkwardly shaped site
and the benefits of its development for residential purposes outweigh these normal standards in
this instance. For clarification, Apartment 4 proposes habitable room windows to Frederick Road
as there is no scope within the design for rear private amenity space.
Other Issues
Adopted Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and
property security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors
including the provision of security features.
The police had a number of concerns about this development and the applicant has sought to
address these. I consider that on balance the proposed development is acceptable in this regard.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
A number of detailed amendments have been made to the design, appearance, level of
amenity for future occupiers and neighbours and security of the development that result
in a considerable overall improvement to the building.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the development is acceptable in
principle, particularly with regard to its density, whether the design of the building is acceptable
and whether it has an acceptable effect on neighbouring residents. The development is now for
50% fewer flats than when it was originally submitted and a number of detailed amendments have
been made as a result of concerns about the submitted proposals.
The removal of the existing unneighbourly use is of benefit to existing neighbours and I consider
that the loss of this small industrial building acceptable. The proposed development does not meet
the Council’s usual standards with regard to privacy distances and the level of amenity provided
for future residents but I consider that in this instance, on balance, an acceptable compromise has
been reached between the interests of existing neighbours and future residents and the benefits of
the development of this site.
I consider that the development would not have a significant detrimental effect on any interest of
acknowledged importance and therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the
following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the approval of the local planning authority. The investigation shall address the
nature, degree and distribution of contamination and ground gases on the site and its
implications on the risk to human health and controlled water receptors as defined under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA. The investigation shall also address the health
and safety of the site workers, also nearby persons, building structures and services,
landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the environmental pollution in ground water.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the local planning authority prior to
the start of the survey, and recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site. A site
completion report including details of post remediation ground condtions for the site shall be
completed and submitted to the local planning authority prior to occupation of the site.
3. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
4. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the
external elevations and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
5. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
6. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit for written approval by
the Local Planning authority an assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. This
assessment should follow PPG24 guidelines regarding assessing noise from the surrounding
road and rail network, and any other noise sources that are deemed significant to the site. The
assessment should identify all necessary noise mitigation measures to ensure compliance with
BS8233:1999 for all habitable rooms within the proposal. Alternative acoustically shielded
ventilation may be required to allow summer cooling and rapid ventilation without
compromising acoustic protection. Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be
implemented and thereafter retained prior to the occupation of any unit.
Reason(s):
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
5. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
APPLICATION No:
05/49854/COU
APPLICANT:
Innovation In Digital And Electronic Arts (IDEA) Ltd
LOCATION:
Former Brown Brothers Building Bounded By Trinity Way, East
Ordsall Lane And Egerton Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Mixed use conversion and extension to provide workspace (Class
B1), coffee bar, ceche/nursery, 21 apartments, retail/gallery space
together with associated car parking (Amendment to planning
permission 02/45294/COU)
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant warehouse building located between Egerton Street, East
Ordsall Lane and Trinity Way. The main part of the building is three storeys high, with a
basement, and has a tower in the south-eastern corner rising to six storeys. Immediately to the east
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
of the building is a car park. The application site also includes a vacant site to the south of the
building, between Egerton Street and the railway viaduct.
It is proposed to convert the building to provide a mixed use development, including workspaces
(Class B1) (2,000m2), coffee bar (95m2), creche/nursery (105m2), retail/gallery space (90m2), 21
one and two bed apartments (1310m2) and associated car parking and landscaping. The
workspaces would be located in the basement and on the ground, first and second floor levels. The
coffee bar and the creche would both be located on the ground floor. The provision of the creche
has been included in the application in order to encourage parents to participate in the training
courses which would be on offer.
This application constitutes an amendment to an application which was approved in August 2003.
The main amendment is the creation of an additional five apartments and the erection of an
additional rooftop extension. The proposed extension would front Egerton Street and would be
two storeys in height.
It is proposed to provide a total of 49 car parking spaces within the site, including two disabled
spaces. 10 of these spaces would be available for visitors to the crčche, 22 for the workspace and
17 for the apartments. This application proposes 11 fewer car parking spaces than the application
previously approved.
The application has been amended from that originally submitted to allow sufficient space for the
new access road linking East Ordsall Lane to Trinity Way.
SITE HISTORY
In August 2003, planning permission was granted for the mixed use conversion and extension of
building to provide workspace, coffee bar, creche/nursery, 16 apartments, retail/gallery space
together with associated car parking (02/45294/COU)
In October 2000, planning permission was granted for the change of use of vacant warehouse to
provide coffee bar, creche/nursery, study bedrooms, retail/gallery space together with associated
car parking (00/41229/COU)
In October 1999, planning permission was granted for the change of use of vacant warehouse to
workspace (Class B1), construction of car park, disabled access provision, and erection of railings
(99/39802/COU)
In November 1998, planning permission was granted for the change of use from vacant warehouse
to retail and ancillary uses including storage, coffee shop / restaurant and car parking
(97/36580/COU)
CONSULTATIONS
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to conditions restricting the hours of
use of some aspects of the proposed development
Strategic Director of Housing and Planning (Chapel Street Project Office) – supports the
application, subject to a condition relating to landscaping
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections
Ramblers’ Association – no comments received to date
Open Spaces Society – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – no comments received to date
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objections
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on 2nd February 2005
Press notices were published on 3rd February and 10th February 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
18-44 (E) Rodney Street
247, 253-257 (O) Chapel Street
Speedy Hire, Trinity Row, Irwell Street
Flats 219 – 245 (O) Chapel Point, Chapel Street
Euro Car Parks, 31 Byrom Streeet
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
The building will be in use during the day and at night which will cause disturbance
The nursery would be dangerous
There are plenty of flats in the surrounding area and local people would not be able to afford these
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: none
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS7 – Islington
EC14/1 Improvement Proposals – Chapel Street, Blackfriars
T16/1 Major Road Schemes – A6042 Trinity Way
Other policies: DEV2 Good Design
DEV3 Alterations/Extensions
T13 Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/2
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Good Design
A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposal is
acceptable; whether the design is acceptable; whether the proposed level of car parking is
acceptable; whether there would be an appropriate contribution towards environmental
improvements in the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area; and whether the application
accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. I
shall deal with each in turn below.
Principle of the Proposal
Adopted Policy CS7 promotes the improvement and renewal of the Islington area through a
number of measures, including the selective redevelopment of the Chapel Street frontage for
commercial uses and the environmental improvement of the area as a whole.
Draft Policy MX1/2 highlights Chapel Street west as an area to be developed for a mixture of uses.
Appropriate uses include housing, offices, tourism, leisure, retail and community facilities. In
determining the appropriate mix of uses on the site, regard will be had to a number of factors,
including the positive impact of the proposal on the regeneration of the wider area, the contribution
the proposed development would make towards securing activity in the area throughout the day
and the prominence of the location.
The principle of the proposal has already been accepted through the planning permission granted
in August 2003. The amendments proposed by this application, namely the erection of an
additional rooftop extension, the creation of an additional five flats and a decrease in the level of
parking provision, do not change the overall principle of the proposal, which is to provide a
mixed-use development and the re-use of a vacant but prominent building. On the above basis, I
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
am satisfied that the principle of the proposal is acceptable and broadly accords with the above
policies.
Design
Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the
Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.
Adopted Policy DEV3 states that the Council will require all applications for alterations or
extensions of existing buildings to respect the general scale, style, proportion and materials of the
original structure and to complement the general character of the surrounding area.
Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
The design of the proposal is similar to that previously approved. The proposed additional rooftop
extension would be two storeys in height, similar to the other rooftop extension to be constructed.
I consider the scale and massing of the proposed additional extension to be in keeping with the
character, appearance and scale of the existing building and am satisfied that it would not detract
from the building or the surrounding area. The windows to the second floor of the original building
facing Trinity Way and Egerton Street would also be altered to be the same size as the other
windows in those elevations. Given the proposed rooftop extensions and the other alterations
proposed to be made to the building, I do not consider that these minor changes unacceptably alter
the appearance or proportions of the building and have no objections to the application in this
regard. I have attached a condition requiring samples of all the materials for the external elevations
and roof to be submitted and approved and I am satisfied that this will ensure that the materials will
be appropriate. I am therefore satisfied that the application accords with policies DEV1, DEV2 and
DES1.
The car park would be surrounded by 2.1m high fencing. I consider the height to be appropriate.
The remainder of the details of the boundary treatment, including type and colour treatment, will
be required as part of the condition requiring details of the proposed landscaping.
Car Parking
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.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
It is proposed to provide a total of 49 car parking spaces within the site, including two disabled
spaces. 10 of these spaces would be available for visitors to the crčche, 22 for the workspace and
17 for the apartments. Although this application proposes 11 fewer car parking spaces than the
application previously approved, there are a number of factors which support this level of
provision. The site is located in close proximity to Manchester City Centre and the services and
facilities therein. The site is also well served by both bus and train services, with Salford station
being located only a few minutes walk to the east. National, regional and Draft UDP policy
encourage minimum car parking standards and the use of other more sustainable modes of
transport. I have attached a condition requiring cycle storage facilities to be provided within the
site and, subject to this condition, I am satisfied that the proposed level of parking is acceptable
and in accordance with Draft Policy A10.
Contributions towards Environmental Improvements
The Council’s policy note on use of planning obligations in the Chapel Street area highlights the
importance of developers in the Chapel Street area making appropriate contributions towards the
provision of infrastructure, services, facilities and maintenance required in association with their
developments. It states that the typical impact of residential development equates to £1,000 per
unit.
In accordance with the Council’s policies in this regard, the applicant has agreed to make a
contribution of £21,000, which equates to £1,000 per apartment which will go towards
environmental improvements within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area. I have
attached a condition requiring the applicant to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Other Issues
The objector has raised a number of other issues, which I will deal with in turn. Firstly, I have
attached a number of conditions restricting the hours of operation of the crčche, gallery/retail unit
and coffee bar and also controlling the hours of deliveries by HGV. I consider that this will offer
some protection to adjacent residents from noise and disturbance. These conditions were attached
to the previous permissions. It is however important to note that the building is sited in a city centre
location at the junction of two of the major roads and some amount of noise in the area is therefore
inevitable.
Secondly, I do not consider that the proposed nursery would be dangerous. The plans indicate that
there would be an external play area to the nursery. The applicant will be required to provide
details of the boundary treatment to this play area through the submission of a landscaping scheme
which is attached as a condition. I am therefore doubtful that the proposed play area would be
dangerous.
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Finally, whilst there are a number of flats in the vicinity of this site, I do not consider that this
would justify refusal of the application. This application only proposes an additional five
apartments to the scheme already approved and I do not consider that this proposal would result in
an unacceptable increase in the number of apartments in the area.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The scheme now under consideration has been the result of pre-application discussions between
the applicant and planning officers. This has resulted in the reduction in height of the proposed
rooftop extension in order to ensure that the proposal would be more in keeping with the size and
scale of the original building.
In addition, the applicant has also agreed to make a financial contribution towards environmental
improvements within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the principle, design and level of car parking is acceptable. The
proposal would provide an innovative and employment generating use for a vacant and prominent
building within the Chapel Street area. This would assist in furthering the aims of the
Regeneration Strategy for this area of the city, and would be consistent with the relevant policies
of the both 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 A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for
the external elevations and roof of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials,
unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
2. 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
3. The car parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the layout shown on Drawing No.
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
40 Rev G prior to any part of the building being brought into use and shall be made available at
all times the premises are in use
4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the provision of
bicycle storage and 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 the building being brought into use and shall be retained thereafter.
5. No development shall be started until the appropriate orders for the closure or diversion of
highways have been approved.
6. The creche hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall
ONLY be operated between the hours of 7.00am and 7.00pm Monday to Friday.
7. The gallery/retail unit hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 7.00am
and midnight Monday to Saturday and 10.00am and 8.00pm on Sundays.
8. The coffee bar hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 7.00am and
11.00pm Sunday to Thursday and 7.00am and midnight Fridays and Saturdays.
9. Access and deliveries to the site by HGV shall be restricted to 7.00am to 7.00pm Monday to
Friday, 10.00am to 6.00pm on Saturdays and 10.00am to 4.00pm on Sundays.
10. The details of the fume extraction system serving the cooking and/or food preparation areas to
the coffee shop shall be designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to
residential premises and shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
development taking place.
11. 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 the Salford City Council Development Control Policy Note The Use of Planning Obligations in the Chapel Street Area will be paid to the Local Planning
Authority for environmental improvements within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy
area.
Reason(s):
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
4. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with
Policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP, and in order to encourage
recycling, in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
5. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
8. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
9. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
10. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
11. Reason: To ensure the residential development provides appropriate environmental
improvements in accordance with the Salford City Council Development Control Policy Note The Use of Planning Obligations in the Chapel Street Area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the basement of the building may be vulnerable to flooding. It is
therefore recommended that the basement drainage be pumped.
2. The applicant is advised that connections to the sewers require approval from United Utilities.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from Greater Manchester Police.
4. 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.
5. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the amended plans received on 1st
February and 14th February 2005 which show amendments to the elevations and amendments
to the site layout and floor plans respectively.
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
APPLICATION No:
05/49866/FUL
APPLICANT:
Fairclough Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Clifton Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two and half and three storey buildings to provide
64dwellings/apartments together with associated landscaping,
car parking and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 0.75hectare site located at the southern end of Clifton Road, Eccles.
The site is currently occupied by three businesses, A Plant, Power Gems and Charles Bell. To the
south of the site, beyond a narrow tree belt made up of self sown Goat Willows, is the M602
motorway. To the east and northwest of the site are residential areas and adjacent to the west is a
large engineering company (J Fletcher). To the north is an existing commercial site which recently
received outline planning permission for the erection of 17 residential units (04/49622/OUT). The
site is located approximately 150m to the south of the Monton Key Local Centre.
The proposal would remove the existing industrial/employment uses and replace them with 64
dwellings (four 1-bedroom apartments, forty-five 2-bedroom apartments, four 3-bedroom houses,
and eleven 4-bedroom houses) along with associated landscaping and 69 car parking spaces
including 5 disabled spaces. In addition, 4 cycle stores are proposed, each one measuring 4.5m x
2m.
The proposed development would be made up of a combination of 2, 2 ½, and 3 storey buildings.
The layout predominantly consists of 2 ½ storey townhouses and 3 storey apartments with some
flyover units to the rear of the site set back from Clifton Road. Traditional red brick and grey
concrete roofing tiles have been selected for all the properties throughout the development.
Fronting Clifton Road would be a 3 storey block comprising 18 apartments, together with a terrace
of four 2 ½ storey dwellings. They would be set back 9m from Clifton Road. The apartment block
would measure 14m x 28m and would have a height of 8m to the eaves and 11m to the ridge of the
roof. Central sections 9m in width would stand proud of both the front and rear elevations by
1.5m. The detailing of the front and rear elevations would include soldier course cills and arched
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
soldier course lintels, patio doors with Juliet balconies at 1st and 2nd floor levels, hipped roof
structures extending above the main eaves line, and mock Tudor detailing. Entrances would be
provided to the front and rear of the block. Car parking would also be provided to both the front
and rear of the apartments, with an area of amenity space to the rear measuring approximately 19m
x 13m. The adjacent terrace of dwellings would have varying roof heights and similar window
detailing to the apartment block. The second floors would be contained either partially or wholly
within the roof space. Integral garages are proposed for the middle two properties and private
gardens are proposed to the rear.
The remaining properties would form a U-shape, within which an access road would be
constructed. These properties would incorporate similar design features to those described above
and would also have varying roof profiles. Private gardens would be provided to the rear of the
houses (plots 23-30 and 36-38), with a large area of communal amenity space being provided at
the southern end of the site. Additional amenity space and landscaping is proposed between the
dwellings and the proposed access Road. Parking for the houses would be provided at the front
whilst parking for the apartments would be provided to the rear. Access to the rear parking would
be gained below two flyover units. Bin stores and cycles stores would be scattered across the site
in a number of locations.
There would be a distance of 24m to the 3-storey properties on the opposite side of Clifton Road,
and 25m between the proposed properties which face each other and which form the U-shape
previously mentioned. There would be a distance of 16m from the frontages of plots 62-64 to the
gable of plot 22 and a distance of 12.5m from the rear elevation of plot 20 to the gable of plot 23.
All buildings would be located at least 8m from the periphery of the site.
SITE HISTORY
None relevant
CONSULTATIONS
United Utilities – No objection subject to suitable drainage. The presence of two public sewers
and necessary easements is highlighted which United Utilities will not allow building over.
Further general advice is also given.
Director of Environmental Health – no objection, recommendations made with regard to noise and
land contamination.
Environment Agency – no objections, recommendations made in connection with land
contamination.
Architectural Liaison Officer – Recommendations made in relation to accesses and concern is
raised over doorway recesses.
Highways Agency – no objection, advise for the developer given.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Chief Executive’s (Economic Development) – no comments received.
Strategic Director of Housing and Planning – does not oppose the loss of employment land for
residential purposes but concern is raised over the design and layout of the development and the
provision of parking within the site.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 3rd February 2005
A site notice was displayed on 31st January 2005.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1-59 (odd), 36-54 (even), 59a, 67 and 141-147 (odd) Monton Road
1-45 Greenside Court
34-36, AK Plant Hire, Decorshade, Powergems and ‘A’ Plant ACROW Clifton
Road
1-12 Clifton Avenue
J Fletcher (Engineers Ltd) Lansdowne Road
1-23 (odd) Carlton Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:Affordable housing should be considered as part of the scheme.
Erosion of the area as an industrial estate.
Adverse impact on traffic.
Disturbances during the construction phase.
The proposal would result in complaints from future occupants aimed at the
existing industrial premises relating to issues such as noise and industrial traffic.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY (RSS13)
Policies:
DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 Quality in New Development
SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
EC3 – Re-use of Sites and Premises
H1 – Housing Supply
H6/H11 – Open Space Provision
T13 – Car Parking
EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
ST11 – Location of New Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
H1 – Supply of Housing
H4 – Affordable Housing
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing
Development
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle, and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of residential
development is acceptable, the scale, design and layout of the development and its impact on the
amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and the amenity provisions for future occupants.
Principle of Residential Development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. The development would see the re-use of
brownfield land thus complying with criteria 1b of Policy ST11 and the guidance contained within
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 – Housing (PPG3), which seeks to prioritise the development of
such land over land which has not been previously developed (greenfield land).
Policy EC3 states that, where existing non-retail commercial premises become vacant, the city
council will seek to re-use or redevelop them for similar uses except where one or more of three
criteria are satisfied. The first criterion states that development must not result in a material or
unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites available for economic development.
I am mindful that the site is only one of three employment sites within this otherwise residential
area. Furthermore, outline planning permission for 17 residential units was granted in February
2005 for the commercial site to the north (04/49622/OUT). With regard to the existing
commercial occupiers of the site, two have submitted letters stating their intention to search for
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
larger premises within the locality or to consolidate their businesses on other sites they own within
the City.
The applicant’s have submitted an Employment Land Use Report, which provides details of
available premises within the City. The figures included from the Midas Database show that there
are 29 available units of a similar size to those that would be lost, 17 units larger in size and a
further 92 units of other sizes. Therefore, I am satisfied that the loss of this site to residential
purposes would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the City’s overall employment land
supply.
The surrounding area is predominantly residential, therefore I am satisfied that the proposal would
respect the character of the area. Although the M602 is located only a short distance to the
south-west, a noise assessment has been provided by the applicant which demonstrates that the
necessary noise mitigation can be provided. A further noise assessment has been conditioned to
assess the impact of the existing commercial premises on the amenity of the future occupants of
the development. The Director of Environmental Services has no objection to the proposal.
Scale, design and layout of the development and impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers
Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land. Both H1
policies seek to increase the amount of housing within the City with the revised alterations to the
UDP requiring a minimum density of 30 units per hectare. These policies also seek to ensure that
the City’s housing stock is able to meet the requirements of all groups within Salford by providing
a wide range of accommodation.
Taking account of the proposed density of 85 dwellings per hectare, I am satisfied the scale of
development is appropriate having regard for the sites characteristics and location close to Monton
Road. The mix of dwellings proposed would offer greater variety for the immediate surrounding
area and is acceptable in my opinion. Policy H4 states that where there is a demonstrable lack of
affordable housing to meet local needs, developers will be required to provide an element of
affordable housing. At present, no assessment of the City’s housing needs is available and as such
it is not possible for the City Council to require such provision to be provided.
Policy DEV1 requires development to respect its local context and states that regard must be given
to a number of factors including the likely scale of traffic generation and the impact of
development on sunlight and privacy. Policies DP3 and DEV2 seek to encourage high standards of
design. Policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers of other developments.
The variety in house types and roof heights proposed would provide interest in the street scenes.
The use of corner turning apartments within the development would provide a strong built form
and the detail of the dwellings is acceptable in my view. The use of traditional red brick and grey
concrete tiles would help relate the development to the local vernacular and the massing of the
buildings is comparable to existing buildings in the area.
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Council guidance stipulates minimum separation distances that should be maintained between
habitable room windows of houses in order to prevent any serious loss of light / prevent
overbearing development. The separation distances that would be maintained between existing
properties and the proposed dwellings are in accordance with this guidance.
With regard to traffic generation, given the removal of large commercial premises, development of
the site for residential purposes would result in fewer HGV’s using Clifton Road, which in my
opinion would make a positive contribution to the residential amenity of the area. Any
disturbances caused during the construction phase of the development are an acceptable
consequence in my view, especially given the longer term benefits that this development would
offer the area.
Policies T13 and A10 requires developments to include appropriate and sufficient car parking and
current government and council policy is to restrict the amount of parking provision within new
developments and to encourage greener modes of travel. I consider that the provision proposed is
acceptable for such a residential scheme in this location. Disabled parking spaces have been
located close to the entrances of the apartments. The Highway Agency has not objected to the
proposal and I have no objections with regard to highway safety.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 require development to be designed to minimise the risk of crime.
Following discussions with the Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer, the
scheme has been amended to incorporate secure gated accesses throughout the site.
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 and so I
consider the proposal to be in accordance with Policies DEV4 and DES11.
Policy EN7 encourages the conservation of trees and woodlands. The only trees on site are the belt
of self sown Goat Willows to the south. These are of poor form and offer minimal amenity to the
area. The tree survey provided encourages the removal of these trees in favour of Birch, Field
Maple and Rowan trees. The applicant has indicated an intention to follow this advice and provide
details as part of a landscaping scheme. A condition has been added for a landscaping scheme to
be submitted.
Amenity provisions for future occupants
Policy DES7 states that all new development will be required to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. With
regard to separation distances between the proposed dwellings, the only minor shortfall would be
between the rear elevations of plot 20 to the gable of plot 23. This distance would be 12.5m
whereas Council Guidance stipulates a minimum distance of 13m. However, the orientation is
such that a shortfall of 0.5m would have minimal impact on the light enjoyed by the future
residents of plot 20 and hence I consider the relationship to be acceptable. I am satisfied with the
level of amenity space proposed within the development.
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
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 £124,277 is levied and the applicant has acknowledged this
payment. A condition has been attached to ensure the legal agreement is signed prior to the
commencement of development.
With regard to the final objection raised, future occupants would be aware of the surrounding uses
prior to their occupation. A condition has been attached for the applicant to submit an assessment
of the noise from surrounding commercial uses affecting the proposed development and to identify
necessary remediation measures. The Director of Environmental Services has no objection to the
proposal.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
A series of pre-application discussions took place with the developer to hone the details of the
proposal.
The design of the apartment block has been modified significantly to relate it better to the other
units proposed and to ensure the development makes a positive contribution to the street scene.
The siting of this block has also been modified to prevent overbearing development on the
future occupants of plot 19.
Secure access gates have been incorporated into the development to improve security and
prevent the occurrence of crime.
Access to the bin stores has been improved.
The parking layout and provision has been improved, in particular with regard to disabled and
cycle parking. Additional landscaping has also been incorporated to the front of the apartment
block to break up what was originally a row of 10 car parking spaces.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of residential
development is acceptable, the scale, design and layout of the development and its impact on the
amenities of neighbouring occupiers, and the amenity provisions for future occupants. I am
satisfied that the principle of residential development is acceptable and that the scale, design and
layout is also acceptable. I do not consider the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the
amenities of neighbouring occupiers and that the proposal would provide future occupants with a
satisfactory level of amenity. I consider the application to be in accordance with the provisions of
the Development Plan and hence recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the
external elevations (including 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 12months of the substantial completion of the
development hereby approved and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority
4. No dwelling shall be occupied until the associated provision for off street parking has been
completed and made available for the use of that dwelling. Such spaces shall be available at all
times for the parking of a private motor vehicle.
5. 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 otherwise agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
6. Prior to first occupation, glazing with a performance specification equivalent to or better than
10/12/6mm glass/air/glass shall be provided to all habitable rooms with a direct line of sight
with the M602. Eccles by-pass and shall be maintained as effective thereafter. In addition,
prior to first occupation acoustic mechanical ventilation shall also be provided to all habitable
rooms with a direct line of sight with the M602 and shall be maintained as effective thereafter.
The acoustic mechanical ventilation provided shall comply with the standards of the Noise
Insulation Regulations 1988 (as amended) and shall be capable of providing a ventilation rate
of 37litres per second or 136m3 per hour.
7. Prior to the development commencing the applicant shall undertake a further acoustic
assessment to determine the external noise levels from surrounding industrial and commercial
noise sources that the proposed residential elements will be subjected to (day time and night
time). The assessment should be carried out in accordance with BS4142:1997, and shall have
regard to achieving BS8233:1999 in all habitable rooms The assessment should also detail the
steps which need to be taken to mitigate the noise from these sources and shall be submitted to
the Local Planning Authority for approval. Once the mitigation steps are agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority they shall be implemented prior to occupation of the
development.
8. 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
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
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 Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the Local Planning Authority.
9. 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.
Reason(s):
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
5. In order to encourage waste recycling, in accordance with Policy MW11 of the Adopted City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
9. 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. Please find enclosed a copy of the letter from United Utilities which offers advice to the
developer.
2. Please find enclosed a copy of the letter from the Highways Agency which places restrictions
on the developer.
3. This approval relates to the amended plans that were recieved on 22nd February 2005 and
which show alterations to the design and layout of the development.
APPLICATION No:
05/49917/FUL
APPLICANT:
Langtree Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
Verdant House Verdant Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing industrial unit and erection of one three
storey block comprising 11 mews houses and 23 apartments
together with associated car parking
WARD:
Winton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a rectangular shaped site on Verdant Lane that measures approximately
85 metres by 58 metres. The industrial building that previously occupied the site has recently been
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
demolished. The site is bounded by 3 metre high palisade fencing. Planning permission is sought
for 11 three-bed mewshouses and 23 two-bed apartments within a ‘U’ shaped block.
The development would be three-storeys in height, with the top floor comprising dormer style
windows and rooflights. The maximum ridge height would be 10.6 metres. The applicant has made
design improvements to the development which are shown on amended plans.
The mewshouses would have private rear garden areas and an area of private amenity space would
be provided at each of the three apartment buildings. Landscaping is also proposed within the car
park area. A low level wall with railings would be positioned along part of the front boundary to
the site and the rest of the boundary treatment would comprise a 1.8 metre high close boarded
timber fence. Vehicular access to the site is proposed from Verdant Lane. This would be secured
by an electrically operated sliding gate. There would also be a gated pedestrian access onto
Verdant Lane. 24 car parking spaces, included two for disabled persons and four garages are
proposed for the apartments. The mewshouses will each have a garage and drive.
The site is surrounded on three sides by two-storey residential properties on Senior Road and
Brookhouse Avenue and on the opposite side of Verdant Lane is a cemetery.
SITE HISTORY
04/49509/FUL - Demolition of existing industrial premises and erection of one three storey block
comprising 12 mews houses and 23 apartments together with associated car parking. Withdrawn.
04/48610/OUT - Outline planning application for the erection of 11 mews houses and 23
apartments. Approved 27.08.2004.
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit - Detailed comments provided. Strong
concerns, consider that the scheme will generate crime and strongly recommend refusal. The
police are aware of numerous problems concerning nuisance annoyance and other anti-social
behaviour which generates from the adjacent residential estates and strongly impacts on peripheral
development. A lighting scheme is required; loose stones on the unadopted unmetalled road act as
missiles to vandals and anti-social behaviour - the road should be made up to adoptable standards;
recess formed to the entrance of the southwest apartment block is inappropriate; car park to the n/w
is hidden from view form adjacent properties; a robust access control system is required; the site is
excessively permeable and the risk of attack to the rear of the dwellings is great; secure fencing is
required; Verdant Lane boundary should incorporate a low physical boundary to maximise
surveillance but limit casual access onto the site.
Director of Environmental Services – Recommends that contaminated land and noise assessment
conditions are attached to any planning approval.
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
United Utilities – Detailed comments have been made and recommend that letter is attached for
developers attention.
Environment Agency – Recommend site investigation condition is attached to any approval.
Strategic Director of Housing and Planning - Considers the main issues to be addressed relate to
the density and mix of dwelling types, parking provision and design issues. The proposed density
equates to 78 dwellings per hectare, which is quite high given the site’s suburban location.
Considers that the mix of dwelling types is appropriate, but that some reduction in the overall
number of dwellings may be justified. Concerns are expressed with regards to design.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 10th February 2005.
A site notice was displayed on 9th February 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 75 (o) Senior Road
13 – 35 (o) Brookhouse Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection from neighbours in response to the planning
application publicity.
Councillor Pooley has made a number of observations:
xiv.
condition for resurfacing of Verdant lane should be part of the approval
xv. disabled parking bays need to be wider
xvi.
trees and landscaping should be provided around the perimeter to reduce visual
impact from adjacent houses.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: EC3 – Re-Use of Sites and Premises
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
T13 – Car Parking
H6/H11 – Open Space Provision Associated Within New Housing Developments
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: ST11 – Location of New Development
H1 – Provision of New Housing
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the suitability of this site for residential
development and the loss of the industrial premises; the siting of the development and its impact
on neighbouring residents; the design of the development and site access, traffic generation and car
parking provision. Other planning matters for consideration are the public open space
requirements and level of amenity space provision within the proposed development and design
and crime principles
Principle of Residential Development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. Policy H1 aims to meet housing need
through the provision of new housing and policy ST11 requires development to be located on
previously developed land at an appropriate density for the site and to be located close to existing
residential amenities in order to encourage sustainable development. Adopted UDP policy EC3
states that where existing industrial and commercial sites/ premises become vacant, the City
Council will seek to re-use or redevelop them for similar or related uses except where the
sites/premises could be used for other purposes without a resulting material or unacceptable
shortfall in the range of sites/premises available for economic development; alternative
employment generating development would be more appropriate or there is a strong
environmental case for rationalising land uses or creating open space. Given that the site is
surrounded on three sides by residential development and is relatively small and isolated from any
nearby employment areas, there would seem to be a case for the rationalisation of uses in this area
and considering the size and location of the site, its loss would not materially affect the range of
employment sites and/or premises. Furthermore, the principal of residential development has been
established by the approval of outline planning permission in 2004. I therefore consider that the
principle of residential development is acceptable.
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
With regards to the density of the development, I consider that a density of 78 dwellings per
hectare is acceptable in this location which is at close proximity to the Liverpool Road corridor and
its associated local services and bus routes. The site is also within walking distance of the
Brookhouse Avenue key local centre.
Siting, Layout and Design
Replacement Plan 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. Replacement Plan 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
With regards to the relationship to existing dwellings, the closest dwellings are at 25 and 27
Brookhouse Avenue. There would be a minimum separation distance of 23.4 metres between the
windows of the proposed development and those of the existing dwellings at 25 and 27. The
distance between the proposed development and 23 Brookhouse Avenue would be 28 metres. The
minimum distance between the habitable room windows of the proposed development and the
boundaries with the rear gardens of existing dwellings on Senior Road is 9 metres - the existing
houses have gardens in excess of 20 metres. I do not therefore consider that there would be any
loss of privacy to these residents or overlooking of the garden areas.
Adopted UDP 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.
Policies DEV2 and DES1 seek to encourage the enhancement of the environment through good
design. A Design Statement has been submitted that considers the site’s context and urban design
principles. The proposal has been amended to improve the design of the southern elevation of the
development fronting Verdant Lane. I consider that the proposed design is of a high standard and
complements the character of the surrounding area. I have attached a condition requiring the
submission and approval of all materials prior to the commencement of the development in order
to ensure that they are of a suitably high quality and ensure that the proposed building would make
a positive contribution to the area. I am satisfied that the design and external appearance of the
proposed development is acceptable and would be in keeping with the character of the area.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 require development to be designed to minimise the risk of crime and
Supplementary Planning Guidance – Designing Out Crime encourages natural surveillance for
new developments. The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit has raised some
strong concerns with regards to secure by design considerations and as a result, the applicant has
made a number of amendments to the proposed development which I consider address most of
these concerns. The applicant proposes a scheme of lighting for the development; design
amendments have been made; the parking spaces where there was previously little natural
surveillance have been replaced with garages; details of a secure access system have been
provided; permeable boundary treatment would be provided to the front of the site; the site would
be secured by the proposed boundary treatments and automatic gates. A condition has been
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
attached requiring the road to be made up to adoptable standards. I consider that the proposed
development would provide sufficient levels of natural surveillance for communal gardens and
parking areas and I therefore consider the proposal to be in accordance with policies DEV4 and
DES11
Access and Car Parking Provision
Policy T13 requires developments to have adequate and appropriate car parking and servicing and
identifies minimum parking standards. Within the revised deposit draft UDP there are no standards
for car parking for dwellings and the emphasis is on maximum parking standards, in line with
national (PPG3 and PPG13) and regional planning guidance (RPG13) and the desire to have less
reliance on travel by private car. I consider that this level of parking is acceptable. I have
recommended a condition requiring an appropriate level of disabled persons parking to be
provided. A condition is recommended requiring Verdant lane to be made up to adoptable
standards. I have no highway objections to the proposals.
Amenity Space Provision
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 these policies, the applicant
has agreed to make a financial contribution towards open space. This would be through the
provision of a commuted sum towards open spaces in the vicinity.
With regards to the provision of amenity space within the site, communal garden areas are
proposed for the apartments and the mewshouses would have private rear gardens. In addition,
landscaping would be provided within the site and to the site boundaries.
I therefore consider that a satisfactory level of amenity space has been identified for the proposed
houses and apartments.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Improvements made since previous planning application withdrawn, including reduction
in number of units to prevent loss of amenity to existing residents
Financial contribution of £72, 797 will be secured in respect of policies H6 and H11
Design improvements have been made, in particular in respect of the Verdant lane
elevation of the building
Plans have been amended to reduce crime/security concerns
CONCLUSION
The main issues in the determination of this proposal are the suitability of residential development
on this site, the design and scale of the proposal and its impact on the amenity of neighbouring
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
residents. I do not consider that the proposed development would result in any significant
detrimental impact on neighbouring residents and I consider that the scale and siting of the
development is appropriate. I consider that the regeneration of this site of this site would make a
significant contribution to the visual amenity of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted plans, no development shall be started
until provision has been made within the curtilage of the site for car parking for disabled
people at a level of at least 5% of total capacity of the car parking areas. Full details of the size
and location of such spaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Such approved parking
facilities shall be made available prior to first occupation, to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
3. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of
bicycle parking facilities have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Such approved bicycle parking facilities shall thereafter be constructed
and made available for use before the first occupation of the building.
4. 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 Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the Local Planning Authority.
5. Prior to the commencement of development, the applicant shall undertake an acoustic
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
assessment to determine the external noise levels from the motorway that the proposed
dwellings will be subjected to (day time and night time). The assessment should be carried out
in accordance with the Department of the Environment Guidance PPG 24 - Planning and Noise
and shall have regard to achieving BS8233:1999 in all habitable rooms. The assessment
should also detail the steps which need to be taken to mitigate the disturbance the road
transport and shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Once the
mitigation steps are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority they shall be
implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter maintained.
6. The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until Verdant Lane,
between the vehicular access to the development and the adopted highway at Brookhouse
Avenue and including the northern footway, has been made up to adoptable standards to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in accordance with policy DEV1 of the
Unitary Development Plan.
7. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4)(a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning
Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a
commuted sum as required by Policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP 1995,
H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003 and SPG7 Provision of Open Space
and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development will be paid to the Local
Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes.
8. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 2nd March 2005 which show
amendments to the design and layout of the development.
9. No development shall be started until full details of the design and construction of the bin and
recycling stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such approved stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use
before the development is brought into use.
10. No development shall be started until full details of the position, design and direction of the
proposed lighting for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Such details shall ensure that all lighting points away from the
surrounding residential properties.
11. 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.
12. 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
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
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
Reason(s):
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To ensure that adequate car parking provision is made for disabled people within the curtilage
of the site in accordance with policy DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. To ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of bicycles within the curtilage of
the site in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. To provide for the safety and convenience of users of the highway, to provide an acceptable
pedestrian environment and to safeguard the amenity of future residents in accordance with
policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP
1995 and H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
10. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy
DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
12. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the
Directorate of Environmental Services (Tel: (0161) 737 0551).
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities.
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.
APPLICATION No:
05/49964/OUT
APPLICANT:
Green Street Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Dunlop Factory Clifford Street Eccles MANCHESTER
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the development of land for
residential purposes
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This site is the existing Dunlop Factory on Clifford Street, Patricroft. The substantial red brick
Victorian factory building sits on the back of footpath of Clifford Street and returns the corner onto
Green Street. The factory covers most of the site with vehicle and pedestrian access being taken
from Green Street and servicing being taken from the area between the factory and the adjacent
Peel Green Trading Estate. The factory is currently occupied by two companies; Sambro
International Ltd and New World Toys Ltd.
The surrounding area consists of a mixture of residential and employment uses. To the south of the
site on Clifford Street and Winster Road are two storey residential properties. Fronting onto the
opposite side of Clifford Street are a mixture of two storey residential properties and employment
uses including a council yard and car repair garage. On side roads off Clifford Street there are
mainly two storey terraced properties. To the north of the application site there is a parcel of vacant
land whilst adjacent to the application site to the west is the Peel Green Trading Estate. The
application site is within an established employment area and is in close proximity to some
residential properties.
Planning permission is sought in outline with all matters reserved for residential development. The
applicant has stated in his supporting letter and application form that the factory unit is vacant. The
supporting letter offers an assessment of the proposal against national and UDP planning policies
and in light of an employment land study undertaken by GVA Grimley. The applicant concludes
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
there is an oversupply of employment land within the City and advises that the proposal is
acceptable.
SITE HISTORY
In 2001 planning permission was granted for change of use to warehouse/distribution
(01/42440/COU)
In 1997, planning permission was granted for the Installation of profiled metal wall cladding to
gable end and re-covering three single storey roofs with profiled metal roof
cladding (97/36318/FUL)
In 1991, planning permission was granted for the erection of a steel boiler chimney (E/28640)
In 1980, planning permission was granted for the erection of a boiler house chimney flue
(E/11191)
In 1976, planning permission was granted for the erection of an extension to an existing chimney
(E/3077)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Concerns about the proximity of the proposed residential
development to the adjacent industrial units with respect to noise. Recommends the developer
undertakes a noise assessment to examine industrial noise affecting mixed residential and
industrial areas. Also recommends a contaminated land condition should planning permission be
granted.
GMP Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections to the principal of residential. Welcomes early
consultation on a reserved matters scheme.
GMPTE – Site has good access to a range of transport modes. Offers advice on design of any
future reserved matters application.
Environment Agency – No comments received
United Utilities – No comments received
Strategic Director of Housing and Planning – Objects to the application and recommends refusal
as the proposal is contrary to policies EC3 and E5.
Chief Executive Strategy and Regeneration Directorate – No comments received
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 16th February 2005
A press notice was displayed on 17th February 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 23 odd and 19 A & B Clifford Street
18 – 28 even Clifford Street
Clifford Street Motors, Clifford Street
Your Choice Carpets, Clifford Street
Jackson Lloyd Builders, Clifford Street
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Pendleton Upholstery, Clifford Street
Units 1 – 9 (inclusive) Peel Green Trading Estate, Green Street
Sambro International Ltd, Dunlop Factory, Green Street
New World Toys Ltd, Dunlop Factory, Green Street
26, 27, 28, 29 Matlcok Street
7 & 9, 30 – 36 even Scotta Road
16 & 18, 17 – 21 odd Green Street
2 –32 even (including 16 a to D) Winster Road
34 and 36 Haddon Road
First Industrial Ltd, c/o Botany Bay, Canal Mill, Botany Brow, Chorley
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of representation in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:Support the principle of housing, with detailed comments
existing building is an eyesore and the redevelopment would improve the area
access should not be from Clifford Street
parking for visitors and residents should be ensured
vandals attack the existing building
I have also received one letter of concern of the application.
Concerns are over how near the houses would be sited to a house on Winster Road and that the
development could have a significant impact on the objectors house on Winster Road.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP4 Promoting Sustainable Economic Growth and Competitiveness and Social Inclusion
EC2 Manufacturing Industry
EC6 The Regeneration Challenge: Bringing the Benefits of Economic Growth to Areas of Acute
Need
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EC1 A Balanced Portfolio of Sites, EC3 Re-use of sites and premises, EC4
Improvements to Employment Areas, EN20 Pollution Control, H1 Meeting Housing Needs
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, H1 Provision of New Housing
Development, E5 Development Within Established Employment Areas
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issue relating to this application is whether the principle of residential
development on this existing employment site is acceptable.
Policy EC3 provides criteria where change of use to non employment of vacant sites can, subject
to satisfying criteria, be acceptable. As the site is not vacant the proposal is contrary to this policy.
Policy EC1 seeks to ensure an appropriate supply of employment land and EC4 seeks to encourage
the maintenance of employment areas. Policy EN20 and DES7 relate to noise pollution
safeguarding residential amenity. Policy E5 lists employment related developments that are
acceptable and also advises that planning permission will only be granted for the reuse of
buildings/sites within established employment areas for non employment uses where 1) operating
conditions of other remaining employment would not be compromised; and 2) one or more of four
criteria are satisfied. The four criteria are; a) developer can clearly demonstrate there is no current
or future demand for the site for employment, b) there is a strong environmental case for
rationalising land use or creating open space, c) development would contribute to the
implementation of an approved regeneration strategy; or d) the site is allocated for another use in
the UDP. Policy DP3 seeks to improve local access to jobs, EC2 of RSS refers to the needs of
manufacturing industry and EC6 of RSS seeks to ensure benefits of economic activity across the
region are available in all areas.
Policy EC3 of the Adopted UDP, sets a presumption in favour of reusing existing vacant industrial
and non-retail commercial sites and/or premises for similar uses, except where one or more of a
number of criteria are met. As is relevant in this instance it must be shown that either (i) the sites or
premises could be used for other purposes without a resulting material or unacceptable shortfall in
the range of sites and/or premises, or (iii) it can be shown that there is a strong environmental case
for rationalising land uses or creating open space.
In terms of criterion (iii) there is not considered to be a strong environmental case for rationalising
land uses in this instance. The site in question makes up a larger employment area together with a
number of industrial units to the east. I am unaware of any existing conflicts between these uses
and the neighbouring residential properties, however should the Dunlop site be given over to
residential development, this would not completely remove the industrial element from the area,
and could isolate, and potentially restrict the operations of the remaining units.
In terms of criterion (i), the GVA Grimley employment study, to which the applicant refers,
identifies a total basic supply of employment land within the City of 261.26ha.
The report then considers this supply against two different market projections (Scenario 1 and
Scenario 2). Scenario 1 projects the existing supply against a market that is “Keeping track with
the Northwest”. This scenario is projected from a long-term baseline, spanning 13 years (1991 –
2003), and incorporates economic recession and property market growth. Scenario 2, titled the
“realisation of the Knowledge Capital”, takes a short-term baseline, isolating the effects of
recession from the property market and fully reflects the current climate. Under Scenario 1 GVA
Grimley conclude that the City’s current supply of employment land is sufficient for 20.6 years
and, under Scenario 2, sufficient for 17.7 years.
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
The report goes on to describe that, in planning for the future supply of employment land, the
Council should factor in a “margin of available space”, so as to enable consumer choice. Under
normal market conditions this margin is traditionally 50% above the number of years supply
required to cover the plan period. A supply of 18 years should therefore be provided to cover the
12-year plan period. Salford’s current basic supply is therefore only just within the ‘margin of
space’ standard and it is considered that further erosion of the supply of employment land could
prejudice employment growth, development and investment.
As described by the applicant, these calculations do include an assumption that, 50% of vacant
industrial stock will be reoccupied, and this is partly in recognition of the age profile of the stock
and the unsuitability of many premises to modern requirements. However, it is also noted that the
50% reoccupation rate is applied as a standard assumption and does not incorporate a measure of
“surplus” commercial space. The report also provides a list, alluded to by the applicant, of
employment areas that are considered to be “at risk”, a list that does not include the Dunlop site.
The report describes that their loss would “certainly impact upon the ability of Salford to meet
future employment land requirements, further emphasising the need to keep tight control on the
proportion of future supply lost to non-industrial uses”. The report concludes that the City has a
relatively limited “margin of space”, or consumer choice within the marketplace, and this could
have undesirable substitution effects in terms of prospective occupiers looking to neighbouring
areas to satisfy their accommodations requirements”.
It is therefore considered that, as the future supply within the city is relatively constrained and a
certain element of the existing supply is highlighted as being “at risk”, it is important to control the
loss of existing employment land that either houses an existing use, or has the potential to be taken
up by a new employment use. On this basis I do not consider that the applicant can satisfy the
requirements of criterion (i) of Policy EC3. It is therefore evident that neither criterion (i), or
criterion (iii) can be satisfied, and as criterion (ii) does not apply, it must be concluded that the
development is unacceptable when judged against the provisions of policy EC3.
The proposed scheme must also be assessed against the requirements of Policy E5 of the Revised
Deposit Draft Plan. Policy E5 sets a positive policy context towards appropriate development
within existing employment areas. In terms of the redevelopment of sites or buildings within
established employment areas for non-employment uses the policy first and foremost, requires that
the proposed development will not compromise the operating conditions of other remaining
employment uses. It then requires that one or more of a further four criteria are met. These include,
as is particularly relevant in this case, that (a) the developer can clearly demonstrate that there is no
current or likely future demand for the site or building for employment purposes, and (b) that (as in
the case of Adopted Plan Policy EC3) there is a strong environmental case supporting the
rationalisation of land-uses.
In terms of the possible conflict with the further industrial uses (the first test under policy E5), this
is not an issue that can be determined precisely from the information currently before us, and
should be given further consideration along with colleagues in environmental health, engineering
and highways, economic development and the existing occupants of those units. If residential
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
development is likely to result in limitations being placed on the occupiers of the adjoining
employment buildings in terms of hours of operation, or the processes they undertake, then the
proposal would fall contrary to this initial test. If this initial test can be satisfied then the
development must satisfy one of the four remaining criterion under the Policy (a-d).
In this case, criterion c and d are irrelevant as there is not approved regeneration strategy for the
local area to which the proposed development would contribute (c) and the site is not specifically
allocated in the UDP (d). For the reasons outlined in respect of Adopted UDP Policy EC3 above,
there is no strong case for rationalising uses and therefore criterion (b) cannot be satisfied. This
leaves only criterion (a), where the developer must clearly demonstrate that there is not current or
likely future demand for the site or building for employment purposes.
The applicant’s comments regarding the sites restricted access, together with the age,
configuration and location of the premises are noted. However, following a visit to the site by the
case-officer, it is clear the premises are currently occupied. This would seem to indicate that there
is actually a current demand, and that there could also be the potential for a future demand. From
the information supplied it is therefore considered that the proposal would fail to comply with
criteria (a) of Policy E5. It is therefore considered that the application conflicts with Policy E5 in
its entirety.
The amendment made to PPG3, published on the 24th January 2005, and which inserts a new
paragraph 42a into the guidance document, is also particularly relevant. The insertion describes
that “Local planning authorities should consider favourably planning applications for housing or
mixed use developments which concern land allocated for industrial or commercial use in saved
policies and development plan documents or redundant land or buildings in industrial or
commercial use, but which is no longer needed for such use”. As described above, following a site
visit, a current tenant has been identified. Current occupation would seem to indicate that the
buildings are not redundant, and that the premises are currently needed for an industrial use. The
scheme would not therefore appear to comply with this national guidance.
As stated above the principle of the proposal is contrary to adopted policy EC3. In terms of point 1
of policy E5 the submission of a noise assessment as advised by the Director of Environmental
Services would help to establish whether operating conditions of nearby employment sites would
be compromised. I have not requested the developer undertake such a noise assessment as no part
of the criteria in part 2 of E5 has been satisfied, the principle of residential development is
therefore contrary to the policy. The site is currently occupied by two businesses, it is clear there is
existing demand for the current employment use, contrary to the applicants statement that the site
is vacant. Although I have received three letters of support for the proposed development, one
respondent states the building is an eyesore. I do not consider the Victorian red brick building is an
eyesore and do not consider there is a strong environmental case for the loss of this employment
land. I have received objection from one resident to the impact of houses upon Winster Road. I
consider such an objection is of a more detailed nature concerning siting of new houses. I consider
the proposal is contrary to policy E5, EC1 and EC4 which seek to protect and improve existing
employment areas. I also consider the proposal is contrary to policy H1 which requires new
housing development to be consistent with other policies of the plan.
89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
CONCLUSION
I do not consider the proposed reuse of this employment site for residential development satisfies
policy E5 or H1 of the deposit draft UDP and that the proposal is contrary to EC3, EC1 and EC4 of
the adopted UDP as an unacceptable shortfall in land for employment uses would ensue if this
existing employment were developed for housing. I also consider the proposal is contrary to the
thrusts of policies of the Regional Spatial Strategy. I recommend refusal for the following reason.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The principle of the proposed residential development is, by virtue of the loss of an existing
and active employment site and due to the resultant harm to the City's employment land supply,
contrary to policies EC3 of the Adopted UDP and policies E5 and H1 of the Deposit Draft
UDP.
APPLICATION No:
05/49965/TEL56
APPLICANT:
Orange PCS Limited
LOCATION:
Light Oaks Garage Lancaster Road Salford M6 8AP
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notifcation for the installation of a 12m high BT style
telegraph pole with integral antenna and one equipment cabinet
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
This application relates to the Light Oaks Garage site on Lancaster
Road. This is a re-submission of a previous application which was
refused because all nearby alternative buildings and structures had
not been fully considered (04/49304/TEL56).
To the west of the site, on the opposite side of Lancaster Road, are
playing fields belonging to De La Salle Old Boys Club. Surrounding
the garages are predominantly residential properties.
The proposal is for the erection of a 12m imitation telegraph pole with integral antenna together
with the installation of one equipment cabinet at ground floor level measuring 1.65m (width) X
1.4m (height) X 0.9m (depth). They would be located within the garage site set back 8.7m from
the public footpath.
SITE HISTORY
In November 2004, permission was refused for the installation of an
11.8m street works monopole with one antenna, together with the
installation of one equipment cabinets at ground level on the
opposite side of Lancaster Road (04/49304/TEL56).
CONSULTATIONS
Salford Community Health Care NHS Trust – no comments received.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 21st February 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Hope High School
Light Oaks County Primary/Junior School.
Gibsons Autos, Lancaster Road
87-94, 96 and 98 Cholmondley Road
1a, 1b, 14-24(e) and 1-11(odd) Hayfield Road
24, 122-136(e), Lancaster Road
De La Salle Old Boys Club, Lancaster Road
Texaco Petrol Station, Lancaster Road
1-6 Overdale House, Orient Road
Hope Hospital NHS Trust, Stott Lane
7 May Road
REPRESENTATIONS
91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
I have received 6 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity including
a petition which has been signed by 8 people.
The following issues have been raised:The proposal would be an additional structure for local youths to vandalise.
Public Health
Safety of development in close proximity to the Petrol Station.
Impact on the services running below the pavement
Reference is made to a 127name petition which was submitted for the previous scheme
(04/49304/TEL56).
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
None relevant
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
SC14 - Telecommunications
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 - Telecommunications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the need for the installation, any health
issues resulting from the installation and the visual impact of the installation on the amenity of the
area.
Policy SC14 of the Adopted UDP states that permission for telecommunications development will
normally be granted where there would not be an unacceptable impact on visual or residential
amenity. In determining such applications, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the
significance of the proposed development as part of a national telecommunications network,
whether there are any suitable alternative sites and whether there would be an unacceptable visual
impact in terms of siting and design.
Policy DEV1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP states that proposals for
telecommunications development will only be permitted where a number of criteria are met,
including where there would not be an unacceptable impact on visual or residential amenity, where
the operator has demonstrated compliance with all relevant ICNIRP standards, there is a need for
the development, the rationale for site selection has been outlined and where pre-application
discussions have taken place.
92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
In accordance with Policy DEV1, the applicants have submitted a declaration which shows that the
proposed equipment complies with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines. I am therefore satisfied
that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there should be no adverse health
implications as a result of this proposal.
The applicants have demonstrated that a number of other potential sites/proposals have been
investigated in the surrounding area, but were either not feasible or was refused. These include:
-
Mast sharing with T-Mobile at Swinton Park Golf Club
Mast sharing with Hutchinson 3G at the junction of Eccles Old Road and Stott Lane.
Mast sharing with Vodafone at Lancaster Road
Residential Care Home, Radcliffe Park Road
Grass Verge Opposite Texaco Garage, Lancaster Road
The applicant has provided coverage plots which demonstrates what the existing coverage is and
what the proposed coverage would be following the installation. This information shows that there
is a gap in the existing cell coverage for the area, and that the installation would fill that gap. Some
of the sites identified above would not have provided the necessary plot coverage.
The previous application was refused because discussions had not reach a conclusion with Orange
PCS and the owner of Gibson’s Auto’s who expressed an interest in having a telecommunications
structure located on his land. These discussions have now reached a conclusion and this
application has been submitted as a result. I consider that the relevant provisions of policies SC14
and DEV1 have been submitted.
The original proposal was for a slimline monople structure. Following negotiation this structure
was replaced by an imitation telegraph pole of similar height and was relocated to within the
grounds of Gibson’s Autos garage. Given the height of the surrounding commercial buildings, I
consider the current proposal would be an improvement on the previous design and would not have
a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area. Furthermore, there are a number of
lampposts and telegraph poles along Lancaster Road which would ensure the proposal would not
appear out of place. The equipment cabinet would be colour treated prior to installation. Such
colour treatment would ensure that the proposed cabinet would blend in with the area.
With regard to the first objection, I do not consider that the proposal would result in an increase in
vandalism in the area. I have no objection on grounds of drainage. The responsibility lies with the
applicant to ensure that existing utilities are not disturbed and all relevant health and safety
legislation has been satisfied.
On the above basis, I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with policies SC14 and DEV1
and I therefore recommend approval.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The monopole structure was replaced by an imitation telegraph pole in order to blend in
better with the area and be a less harsh feature.
93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
The siting of the structure has been modified in order to minimise the impact on the
street scene.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the need for the installation, any health
issues resulting from the installation and the visual impact of the installation on the amenity of the
area. The applicant has submitted a declaration which shows that the proposed equipment
complies with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines and so I have no objection on health grounds. I
am satisfied that there is a need for an installation in this area and that the development proposed
would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The equipment cabinet hereby approved shall be powder coated black prior to its installation
and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
05/50070/OUT
APPLICANT:
Clifton Park Hotel Ltd
LOCATION:
Clifton Park Hotel Manchester Road Swinton Manchester M27
6WE
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of four - two/three
storey buildings comprising 34 apartments together with
associated car parking an alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
94
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
This application relates to the Clifton Park Hotel formerly known as the Gay Willows. The site
comprises of a hotel located at the top of a narrow driveway, with a detached bungalow to the west
and separate residential properties to the rear of the hotel. The entrance is bounded by a two storey
residential property and the rear garden of two cottages on Dixon Drive. The hotel appears on the
Council’s own list of buildings of architectural and historical interest.
Oakwood Avenue bounds the eastern side of the site comprises of two storey semi-detached
properties bungalows. Dixon Drive comprises of a mixture of two storey properties and
bungalows.
Dixon Drive is a Public Right of Way. The part of Dixon Drive which serves the residential
properties is able to accommodate vehicular traffic, is unmade and un-adopted. Two access points
are currently located on Dixon Drive that serve the hotel. These access points are used
infrequently and are currently gated.
There is a belt of mature trees to the west of the site which wrap around the existing bungalow and
have been afforded a Tree Preservation Order. The horse chestnut trees located in the
neighbouring properties adjacent to the access have not been afforded the protection of a
preservation order. No trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate this proposal.
The site is generally flat although there is a significant change in levels outside the site to the north
leading down into the valley. The trees located on this embankment are also the subject of a
preservation order.
Members will recall that at the meeting of the Panel held on the 20th January 2005 a similar full
application for the erection of 36 apartments was refused. This current application is in outline for
a scheme comprising of 34 apartments. Approval is sought for all matters except landscaping.
Therefore the main difference between this scheme and that already refused by this panel is the
reduction of the number of apartments from 36 to 34 and the reduction in height of Block A. Block
A was previous three storey in height and has been reduced to two storey.
The remainder of the application is unchanged from that which was previously refused.
The proposal seeks outline consent for the erection of 34 two bedroom apartments within six
blocks forming four distinct blocks. The existing access would facilitate the scheme. No access is
proposed onto Dixon Drive from the site. Thirty six car parking spaces would be provided, three
of which would be for disabled people.
Blocks A and B would be located to the left hand side of the access. Block A would be two storey
in height and block B would be three storey in height. Block B would be parallel to the access with
its gable facing the access road. Block A would be sited 90 degrees to Block B. Block A would be
1m from the adjoining common boundary. There would be no habitable windows within the
gables of block A. The ridge would be a maximum height of 8.2m rather than the 9.8m as
previously refused. The main frontage of block B would be 14.2m from the neighbouring common
95
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
boundary. Both blocks would maintain a minimum distance of 3.6m to the canopy of the
neighbouring TPO’d trees. Private amenity space would be provided to the rear of each block. Six
apartment would be provided within Block B and four within block A (ten in total).
Blocks C and D would be located on the right hand side of the access, centrally within the site.
These blocks would be joined together. They would be two storey in height, 6.8m to ridge closest
to the common boundary, stepping up to 7.5m. It would be 1.2m from the common boundary at its
closest point. There are no habitable windows directly facing the neighbouring bungalow. The
closest habitable window would be situated 5m from the common boundary, orientated away from
the neighbouring property. Private amenity space would be provided to the rear. Six apartments
would be provided in this combined block.
The majority of the apartments would be provided in a part 21/2 part 3 storey block to the rear of the
site. This block is referred to as E, F and G would provide 18 of the apartments. Blocks E and F
would be 21/2 storey, utilising the roof space for a third floor. Block E would be 3m from the
eastern boundary with Oakwood Avenue, 9.8m from the main element of 16 Oakwood Drive. The
rear elevation would be 7m from the boundary with the adjoining Public Right of Way. The ridge
height of the 21/2 storey element would be 10.4m. Due to the change in levels between the site and
the closest neighbouring on Oakwood Drive, the ridge height would be 3.6m higher than that of 16
Oakwood Drive.
SITE HISTORY
A similar scheme for 38 apartments was withdrawn from consideration last year (04/48767/FUL)
A scheme for 36 apartments was refused by this panel earlier list year (04/49293/FUL). The
reason for refusal states:“The construction of Block A, would by virtue of is size and siting, result in overlooking,
overbearing and overshadowing to the detriment of the living conditions of the neighbouring
properties contrary to policy DES7 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
Plan”
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Health – No objection – recommends that a noise assessment be
undertaken and a site investigation
United Utilities – No objection – connection and details of the proposed sewer system would
require United Utilities approval
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objection and provides advice
Environmental Agency – No objection, suggest a condition regarding surface water
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No response
Open Spaces Society – No response
Ramblers Association – Objects to the proposal – No response
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No response
96
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
PUBLICITY
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 3rd March 2004
A site notice was displayed on the main entrance on 22nd February 2005
1 - 2, 7 - 8, Longoaks, The Woodlands, Wydnnor Cottage Dixon Drive
359 - 369 (odd), 343 - 351 (odd), Oakwood, 346, 348 Manchester Road
1 - 3 (o), 2 - 16 (even) Oakwood Drive
14 - 48 (even) Kirkstile Place (Moss Colliery Road)
1, 2 and 4 Fielders Way
1 - 5 Wicket Grove
11 – 13 Ross Drive
10 Belmont Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representation in response to the current application publicity. However,
13 letters of objection were received in response to the previous planning application along with
two petitions, one with 6 signatures and one containing 130 signatures. The following issues were
raised:Dixon Drive would be narrowed
Loss of Turning Facility on Dixon Drive
Over development
Insufficient Car parking provision
Loss of privacy
Loss of light
Development too high
Impact on sewers (both during construction and future capability)
Loss of trees
Access onto Dixon Drive
Disruption to access of Dixon Drive
Vandalism
Access to the site
Loss of value
Height of retained wall
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
None
97
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H1 – Meeting Housing Needs, H6 – Open Space Provision within New
Housing Developments, H11 – Open Space Provision within New Housing
Developments, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design, DEV4
– Design and Crime, T13 – Car Parking EN7 Conservation of Trees and
Woodlands, TR5 – Protection of existing and potential assets.
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development, H8 – Open Space Provision
Associated With New Housing Developments, DES1 – Respecting Context,
DES11 – Design and Crime, A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle
Parking in New Development, EN10 Protected Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of residential
development in this location is acceptable; whether adequate provision would be made for open
space; whether the proposed level of car parking is sufficient; whether the development would
have any impact upon the TPO’d trees; whether it is appropriate for the existing building on the
local list to be demolished and loss of a hotel (tourism asset) and whether the proposal complies
with the provisions of the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement UDP. These issues will be discussed in turn below.
The Principle of Residential Development
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.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be
considered. PPG3 also states that, when considering conversions, a more flexible approach is
required with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking.
The site has previously been developed and considered as a brownfield site, as such, I consider the
principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential accommodation to be acceptable and
accords with the thrust of the policies highlighted above. This has to be balanced against the loss of
a potential tourism asset and existing building.
98
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Open Space
Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play within
new housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11 which sets out a sliding scale for
such provision.
Draft Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution towards the
provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity. In accordance with the recently adopted
Supplementary Planning Guidance, the contribution in this regard would be £69,937. I am
satisfied that the application therefore accords with Adopted policies H6 and H11 and Draft Policy
H8.
Design, Layout and Siting
Adopted Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when
determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to
its surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision.
Adopted Policy 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 DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and
property security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors
including the provision of security features.
Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
A modern three storey building is roughly equivalent to a two storey Victorian property. Block A
would be 1.6m higher than the ridge height of 2 Dixon Drive. It would be located adjacent to the
rear garden and would be 12m from the rear of Dixon Drive. As such I do not agree that the
proposal would be inappropriate or overbearing. Moreover, I consider that the reduction in height
of Block A by 2.7m has addressed the previous reason for refusal.
The three storey block B would be 2.9m higher than the ridge height of 2 Dixon Drive. The main
elevation of block B would be 13m from the boundary of 2 Dixon Drive. There is a large Horse
Chestnut tree located at the bottom of the rear garden. This tree is not considered worthy of a
preservation order. However, the proposal would maintain sufficient space from the canopy of the
tree in accordance with the Council’s own SPG for trees so not to affect the tree during
construction or pressure in the future from residents of the scheme. I am satisfied that the siting of
99
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
this block in relation to the bottom of this neighbouring garden and the position of the horse
chestnut tree is sufficient to ensure the privacy of the existing residents of Dixon Drive.
The applicants agent had previously amended the proposal so that the position of the main block
(E, F and G) would be further from the neighbouring property on Oakwood Avenue. The internal
configuration of block C and D has also been amended to ensure that the closest element of the
building 3 Oakwood Drive are none habitable windows, as such I do not consider that there would
be a loss of privacy to this neighbouring property. I am satisfied that the elements of the proposal
would maintain sufficient separation to ensure that the scheme would not have a detrimental
impact upon privacy, sun light and day light.
The proposal would maintain the minimum separation distance to the existing surrounding
properties. Internal separation distances would be maintained through the orientation, position of
and use of facing windows. As such, I am also of the opinion that the design and siting of the
scheme would maintain sufficient separation in accordance with the adopted SPG to ensure the
amenity and privacy of future residents.
The scheme would provide the private amenity space to the rear of the each of the blocks. I am of
the opinion that the level of amenity space is appropriate in this instance and would accord with
policy DEV1 of the adopted plan and DES1 of the replacement plan.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) has commented on the application. He has a
number of security issues relating to detailed matters, including the amount of defensible space
and gated access. I have forwarded a copy of the comments made by the ALO to the applicant’s
agent. I have attached a condition requiring details of the landscaping and fencing to be approved
prior to the commencement of development.
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.
There are a number of trees on the site which benefit from a tree preservation order. These trees
are located to the west of the site and form a belt along the Dixon Drive boundary. The trees would
be retained as part of this scheme to the rear of blocks A and B. The City Council’s arboricultural
officer has inspected these trees and is of the opinion that the proposal would maintain sufficient
space to the trees and their canopies. He has concluded that the trees would not be affected by the
construction of the proposal or from pressure in the future to be pruned.
Whilst I acknowledge that trees have been removed from the site prior to the submission of the
first application. They were not protected by a preservation order and no consent was required to
fell them.
100
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding trees.
Car Parking and Access
Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is
provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards and
that car parks are designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements,
surface materials, boundary treatments and security measures.
Draft Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists
and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
The applicant has indicated that a total of 36 car parking spaces would be provided, three of which
would be marked for disabled provision. I have no highway objection to the application. Given
that the site is location on major route in and out of City and one that is well served by public
transport, I consider the level of car parking to be appropriate and in accordance with the Council’s
maximum car parking standards.
Turning the proposed access. The City Council’s highway engineer is of the opinion that the
proposed access is sufficient for the proposal. Moreover, I have attached a condition regarding the
access road into the site be laid out, drained, surfaced and sealed prior to the commencement of
development. No access, pedestrian or vehicular, would be provided onto Dixon Drive.
Whilst, there is currently an emergency access onto Dixon Drive which aids turning of vehicles it
is not considered a requirement in this instance. However, the applicant has amended the scheme
so that a recessed area would be provided for the residents on Dixon Drive which would continue
to aid manoeuvring.
As such, I am satisfied that the proposal would accords with the adopted and replacement plan
policies in this instance.
Remaining Issues
There is a public water main which runs adjacent to the site. United Utilities have no objection to
the scheme provided that a 2.5m easement is maintained. The proposal would be set into the site
and would not encroach into the easement. Therefore, I do not consider the issues raised
regarding drainage to be matters of concern in this instance.
Loss of commercial value is not a material planning consideration.
The building appears on the Council’s own list of buildings of architectural and historical interest
and is categorised as grade C. The property has been extended and altered over the years and has
only a few of the original features remaining. It is not considered therefore that building is worthy
of retention.
101
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has amended the scheme from that previously withdrawn. The main block which
would be positioned in the location of the former hotel had been moved to the south away from the
Public Right of Way at the rear of the site. The Council’s highway engineers is satisfied that the
proposal would not affect the right of way, nor would any of the proposed boundary treatment.
Moreover, a reduction in the height of Block A has been achieved since members refused the
previous scheme earlier this year.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the design of the proposal is acceptable and the surrounding uses
and the isolated location outweighs the policy framework in this instance. I therefore recommend
that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
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. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
4. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
5. No development shall commence until a scheme of recycling facilities for the apartments has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such
scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
6. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme for the apartments has been
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme as
is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
7. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an
identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled
waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the
102
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
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.
For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Directorate of
Environmental Services (Tel: (0161) 793 2046).
8. Prior to commencement of the development; the developer shall undertake an assessment to
determine the external noise levels from the surrounding roads that the proposed residential
elements will be subjected to (day time and night time). The developer shall detail what steps
have to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above. The assessment shall have due
regard to the Department of the Environment Guidance PPG 24 - Planning and Noise,
achieving BS8233: 1999 in all habitable rooms (including the balcony area). This assessment
and mitigation measures shall be submitted for the approval of Development Services prior to
commencement of the development. Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall
be implemented and thereafter retained.
9. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
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
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
103
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
3. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
9. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
11. 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.
APPLICATION No:
05/49981/TEL56
APPLICANT:
Vodafone Telecommunications
LOCATION:
East Lancashire Road Worsley MANCHESTER
PROPOSAL:
Prior Notification for the installation of a 12m high pole
supporting antennas together with siting of equipment cabinet
and metre cabinet
WARD:
Boothstown And Ellenbrook
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a grass verge alongside the footpath of the East Lancashire Road on the
Salford bound carriageway (northern side of the road). The north and south of the road is
predominantly residential in nature.
The proposal seeks to erect a 12m high monopole column and associated equipment cabin. The
cabin would measure 1800mm in height and would be 1200mm wide. The land immediately to the
north comprises of an embankment which is heavily planted.
104
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
The height of the existing lighting columns are 8m along this part of the East Lancashire Road.
The proposal would be sited within the existing safety barrier controls.
There is an existing monopole (99/39605/TEL) located approximately 60m to the east of this
proposal, also on the north side of the East Lancashire Road adjacent to the underpass which links
Queen Ann Drive and Lymfield Drive.
Members will also recall that prior notification application for a similar structure was refused
earlier this year to the east of this site (approximately 120m) to the rear of Queen Ann Drive
(04/49376/TEL56). This is currently the subject of an appeal.
SITE HISTORY
Members will recall that there have been a number of applications for telecommunications
equipment along the Worlsey and Ellenbrook section of the East Lancashire Road.
Wider East Lancashire Road
In 1997 a prior notification application was refused for the installation of a 15m high tower with
dual polar antennae, dishes and compound, 97/36372/TEL.
In 1998 a prior notification application for the installation of a 15m high monopole with three
antennae, two microwave dishes, six LNA units and one equipment cabin was refused,
98/38071/FUL.
In 1999 the council objected to a prior notification for the installation of telecommunications
equipment comprising a 15m monopole mast and cabin, 98/38808/TEL.
In 1999 a prior notification application for the erection 11.5m free standing telecommunication
telegraph pole and associated equipment was refused (99/39605/TEL). The subsequent appeal
was upheld (T/APP/U4230/A/99/1030800/P4)
In 1999 a prior notification application for the erection 15m free standing telecommunication
telegraph pole and associated equipment was refused (99/39606/TEL). The subsequent appeal
was upheld (T/APP/U4230/A/99/1030802/P4)
In 1999 a prior notification application for the erection of one 15m lamp post type mast with three
antenna, one microwave dish and equipment cabinets and compound, was refused, 99/39491/TEL.
In 2001 a prior notification for the siting of a 15m sectored column, nine dual polar antennas, two
microwave dishes, equipment cabin and ancillary equipment was refused, 01/42750/TEL42.
All the proposals have been refused on the following grounds:
“The proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of policy SC14 of the
adopted Unitary Development Plan relating to telecommunications development”.
105
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
“The proposed development would be an unduly intrusive feature in the street scene and
would seriously injure the visual amenity of the area by reasons of siting, design and
height”.
In 2002, prior notification of telecommunications installation for the erection of a 12.5m monopole
with three antennae and one 300mm (02/44437/TEL56) was approved by members of the panel.
In approving this proposal members were mindful of the appeal decisions of the time where the
City Council’s decision to refuse two similar 11m and 15m high monopole masts at locations
nearby on the East Lancs Road which were allowed.
Immediate Area to proposal
In 1999 a prior notification application for the erection 11.5m free standing telecommunication
telegraph pole and associated equipment was refused (99/39605/TEL). The subsequent appeal
was allowed (T/APP/U4230/A/99/1030800/P4). This is located on the north side of the East
Lancashire Road adjacent to the underpass which links Queen Ann Drive and Lymfield Drive.
A similar application to the west of this site (also on the north side of the East Lancashire Road
adjacent to Mosley Common) was recently withdrawn from consideration (04/48987/TEL56)
In December last year a Prior Notification application for the siting of a 12.5m high flexicell No. 2
column together with associated equipment cabinet was refused by this panel (04/49376/TEL56,
located to the south of Queen Ann Drive). An appeal against the refusal of planning permission
has been received in relation to this site.
CONSULTATIONS
Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council – No Objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 15th February 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
77 – 89 Lymefield Drive
60 –76 Standfield Drive
8 , 9, 11, 15, 17, 19 and 21 Queen Anne Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection and a petition against the scheme containing thirteen
names in response to the planning application. The following issues have been raised:-
106
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
Number of existing telecomms in the area
Why cannot the operators combine/share
Insufficient time for consultation
Eyesore
Proximity to residential properties
Health risks
Loss of value
Alternative locations
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
SC14 – Telecommunications, DEV1 Development Criteria
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
DEV1 - Telecommunications
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the need for the installation, any health
issues resulting from the installation and the visual impact of the installation on the amenity of the
area.
Policy SC14 of the Adopted UDP states that permission for telecommunications development will
normally be granted where there would not be an unacceptable impact on visual or residential
amenity. In determining such applications, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the
significance of the proposed development as part of a national telecommunications network,
whether there are any suitable alternative sites and whether there would be an unacceptable visual
impact in terms of siting and design.
Policy DEV1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP states that proposal for
telecommunications development will only be permitted where a number of criteria are met,
including where there would not be an unacceptable impact on visual or residential amenity, where
the operator has demonstrated compliance with all relevant ICNIRP standards, there is a need for
the development, the rationale for site selection has been outlined and where pre-application
discussions have taken place.
107
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
In accordance with Policy DEV1, the applicants have submitted a declaration which shows that the
proposed equipment complies with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines. I am therefore satisfied
that sufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that there should be no adverse health
implications as a result of this proposal.
I consider that in visual terms this proposal is acceptable, as the site lies adjacent to a major arterial
road, where it would be viewed in conjunction with lamp posts, which are 8m high. Further, it
would not appear a significantly unsightly feature in the street scene, as it would be similar in
appearance to the lamp posts. Consequently, I do not believe that it would appear an incongruous
or intrusive feature. The site lies 60m away from the nearest residential property and screened by a
belt of trees, bushes and the raised embankment of Mosley Common.
The applicants have demonstrated that a number of other potential sites have been investigated in
the surrounding area, but were either not feasible or not Whilst it may be appropriate for operators
to share masts, I do not consider that it would be appropriate to this area as the sharing of masts
would require a more substantial higher structure which would have a detrimental impact upon the
visual appearance of the area.
In terms of history, two appeals were allowed in 1999. One of the appeal decision relates to the
existing monopole located approximately 60m to the east of this site. The operator is Orange. I
consider that the Inspectors decisions are a material consideration when assessing similar
telecommunications applications along this road corridor.
Whilst I acknowledge that this proposal would be close to an existing Orange monopole, I consider
that the visual appearance of two monopoles 60m apart to be far less intrusive on the visual
amenity of an area when considered in the context of street lighting columns, than a structure
designed to accommodate a number of operators. A structure able to accommodate a number of
operators would have to be larger than the monopole proposed in this instance.
Loss of value is not a material planning consideration.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the need for the installation, any health
issues resulting from the installation and the visual impact of the installation on the amenity of the
area. The applicant has submitted a declaration which shows that the proposed equipment
complies with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines and so I have no objection on health grounds. I
am satisfied that there is a need for an installation in this area and that the development proposed
would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
108
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The pole and equipment hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in
writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Director of Development
Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
05/50009/COU
APPLICANT:
Mr David Pike
LOCATION:
597 - 599 Liverpool Road Irlam M44 5BE
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to hot food/care/bar (Class A3)
(re-submission of planning application 04/49816/COU)
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property in Irlam. The property is currently unoccupied at
ground floor level but was previously occupied as a tanning salon. At first floor there is separate
residential accommodation, which is currently occupied. The property is bounded at 595
Liverpool Road by a Citizens Advice Bureau and at 601 by a bookshop. The owners of the
bookshop live above their shop. The surrounding area is a mixture of commercial and residential
properties. Many of the commercial properties are currently unoccupied. There are a number of
pubs and licensed establishments within the vicinity. The property is situated in Lower Irlam Key
Local Centre. There is limited public car parking in the vicinity and waiting restrictions are in
force on Liverpool Road adjacent to the application site.
Permission is sought to change the use of 597 – 599 Liverpool Road from a shop (A1) to a shop for
the sale of hot food (A3) and a wine/cafe bar for over 25’s.
The proposed opening hours are:
07:30 – 23:00 Monday to Thursday
109
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
07:30 – 00:00 Friday and Saturday
07:30 – 10:30 Sunday
Floor plans have been submitted with the application, which show the main seating and bar areas,
disabled toilet and kitchen at ground floor and living accommodation associated with the use and
toilets for the restaurant at first floor.
The application shows a kitchen flue located on the side of the building nearest the
bookshop/residential accommodation at 601 Liverpool Road.
The proposal includes four car parking spaces to the rear of the property accessed via a narrow
access way to the side of the property.
SITE HISTORY
In February 2005 a previous application, 04/49816/COU, for the change of use from a shop (A1) to
shop for the sale of hot food (A3) for the use as the café/bar restaurant was refused on the
following grounds:
The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents
by reason of noise and disturbance and general activity and would therefore be contrary to
policy S5 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of the
Revised Draft Deposit Unitary Development Plan.
The proposed development, without the provision of adequate off street parking and/or
loading would be unsatisfactory contrary to policy S5 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
This application represents a resubmission of application 04/49816/COU. Further supporting
information has been submitted alongside the application relating to the proposed use as a
wine/cafe and floor plans to show the proposed layout and the position of the flue. Further to the
previous application it has been confirmed that the wine/café bar will occupy the ground floor and
part of the first floor of the building. The first floor of the property is currently residential and the
applicant has confirmed that any living accommodation within the building should planning
permission be granted would be associated with the A3 use.
CONSULTATIONS
Directorate of Environmental Services – There is concern regarding the siting of an A3 use where
there is living accommodation at first floor level adjacent to the proposed development. This is
considered undesirable not only due to likely disturbance from activities on the premises and from
clientele entering and leaving the premises but also from cooking odours.
PUBLICITY
110
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
A site notice was displayed on the 20th February 2005.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
575B, 575A, 602, 589A, 604A, 604, 606, 608, 589, 591, 593, 595, 599, 603, 587, 601,
602A, 605, 606A Liverpool Road, Irlam
Parkside Dental Practice, 610 Liverpool Road, Irlam
Railway Inn, 600 Liverpool Road, Irlam
First Floor Flat, 575B Liverpool Road, Irlam
Flat above, 589 Liverpool Road, Irlam
Flat 1, 604 Liverpool Road, Irlam
Flat 2, 604 Liverpool Road, Irlam
Flat above, 597-595 Liverpool Road, Irlam
Flat, 599A Liverpool Road, Irlam
Flat 565-567 Liverpool Road, Irlam
Flat, 589 Liverpool Road, Irlam
Flat above 559 Liverpool Road, Irlam
Rear flat, 589 Liverpool Road, Irlam
1, 3, 5 Clarendon Road, Irlam.
Flex Gym, Clarendon Road, Irlam
Industrade Services Co, Tramway Road, Irlam.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 5 letters in support of the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 - Development Criteria
S3 – Key Local Centres
S5 – Control of Food and Drink Premises
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: S4 – Amusement Centres and Food and Drink Uses
PLANNING APPRAISAL
111
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact on residential amenity to
neighbouring properties, car parking demand and impact upon the key local centre.
Policy DEV1 of the Adopted UDP requires the City Council to have regard to the location and
nature of the proposed development, including its relationship to existing and proposed uses, the
relationship to road and public transport networks and car parking provision.
Policy S3 of the Adopted UDP seeks to retain, consolidate and improve Salford’s Key Local
Centres. Within Key Local Centres the City Council will permit changes of use or redevelopment
to A3 unless this will have an unacceptable effect on the amenity, environment, vitality or viability
of the key local centre either individually or by the cumulative effect of such development. The
proposed café/bar is situated in a row of properties many of which are derelict. At the opposite end
of the row of shops are a number of hot food takeaways. There are residential properties within the
row of shops at numbers 603, 605, 583-587 and at first floor level above a number of the retail
units, including at the neighbouring property at 601 Liverpool Road. There are three pubs and a
social club in the vicinity of the proposed development and a restaurant at 593 Liverpool Road, all
with late opening hours. The application for this restaurant was approved in June 2000. This
property is separated from its neighbouring property at 591 Liverpool Road by a significant gap,
and at the time of the application there were no occupied residential dwellings in the row of
properties to which this application relates. It was therefore considered that the application was
acceptable. Since this application was approved a number of these previously empty dwellings
have been occupied and any detrimental impact upon residential amenity is therefore likely to be
greater in this instance.
Policy S5 of the Adopted UDP and policy S4 of the Revised Draft Deposit Plan require
consideration of whether the proposed A3 use would have an unacceptably adverse impact on the
amenities of surrounding residential occupiers by reason of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes,
litter, vehicular traffic movements, parking and pedestrian traffic. The site of the development is a
detached property, however only a small gap exists between this property and the neighbouring
property at 601 Liverpool Road where there is residential at first floor level. The floor plans and
rear elevation submitted show the proposed flue situated on this side of the property. I find this to
be insensitively sited with regard to the neighbouring residential property and feel that this would
be detrimental to the amenity that the residents of this property could reasonably expect to enjoy
due to cooking odours being released next to their property.
The Directorate of Environmental Services have raised concerns with regard to noise disturbance
from background music within the property, people entering and leaving the property especially
late at night and neighbouring residential properties are only likely to receive relative peace and
quiet when commercial trading is not in operation. Concerns have also been raised with regard to
the cumulative effect of noise and general disturbance from so many licensed premised in such a
small area
The property is opposite a pedestrian crossing along Liverpool Road where waiting restrictions are
in operation. Only four car parking spaces are provided on the site, which are sufficient for staff,
but their location renders them unsuitable for use by patrons. The supporting information supplied
112
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
by the applicant suggests that parking will be accommodated on local parking facilities within easy
walking distance of the site. However these are predominantly private car parks operated by local
businesses, all displaying signage to indicate that they are private facilities. I am concerned that
this will result in parking in neighbouring residential streets to the detriment of residential amenity.
The restaurant approved at number 593 was granted permission with only four car parking spaces,
however I consider that there will be a cumulative impact upon residential amenity of allowing a
second A3 use with insufficient car parking.
The applicant is seeking to arrange with a local business with regard to using their parking
facilities in the evening, however the supporting information suggests that the business will be
reliant upon a degree of passing trade during the day when other car parks will be in use. I also
consider that should this arrangement be made then it is unlikely that those stopping speculatively
would be aware of this arrangement and they may park in an inconsiderate manner.
The supporting information suggests that the applicant expects many of the evening customers to
use taxis, however this will create additional noise and disturbance to neighbouring residential
properties, due to doors slamming, horns and car radios and may compromise highway and
pedestrian safety if taxis pull up on the adjacent pedestrian crossing. There may also be associated
problems with people congregating outside the property.
The supporting information provided by the applicant is keen to stress that this is not an
application for a hot food take away but for an upmarket café/bar restaurant aimed at over 25’s.
However at the current time both uses fall within A3 use class and therefore no planning
permission would be required in order for this property to become a hot food takeaway.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the proposed change of use of this property from a shop to a shop for
the sale of hot food is unacceptable in this location, as it would result in a loss of amenity to
neighbouring residential properties, in particular the occupants of the first floor at 601 Liverpool
due to noise, cooking odours and general disturbance. I also consider that a lack of car parking
associated with this use would aggravate this loss of amenity.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by
reason of noise and disturbance and general activity and would therefore be contrary to Policy
S5 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy S4 of the Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development, without the provision of adequate off-street facilities for parking
and/or loading would be unsatisfactory resulting in a loss of amenity to neighbouring
113
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
residential properties, contrary to policy S5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
114
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
115
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th March 2005
116