PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
APPLICATION NO:
04/49486/FUL
APPLICANT:
Adam Geoffrey Management Limited
LOCATION:
Conavon Court 12-16 Blackfriars Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Alterations to existing building together with change of use of
part ground floor from offices to restaurant (A3) and bar (A4),
erection of a part single/part ten storey rear extension and four
storey side extension to provide office accommodation (A2 and
B1 uses)
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
Conavon Court is a five storey former warehouse and office building. It is Grade II listed and
situated within the Flat Iron Conservation Area, close to the junction of Blackfriars Street and
Chapel Street. Part of the building is currently in use as offices, although large parts of the building
are vacant.
The surrounding area comprises a mix of uses. 10 Blackfriars Street (the former Textile Institute,
now known as the Textile Apartments) and 18 Blackfriars Street (The Gallery), on either side of
Conavon Court, are both in residential use in the form of apartments. Adjacent to the former Textile
Institute, which is a Grade II listed building, is a public house, beyond which are other commercial
properties which front Chapel Street, with some residential accommodation at first floor level. On
the opposite side of Chapel Street is the Sacred Trinity Church, which is a Grade II* listed building.
On the opposite side of Blackfriars Street is Dial House, which is used for telecommunications
purposes, and a hotel. A new apartment block is currently under construction at the junction of
Blackfriars Street and Chapel Street. To the rear of Conavon Court is Booth Street, beyond which is
The Edge development, which comprises several buildings which are predominantly used for
residential purposes.
The proposed rear extension to Conavon Court would be part single story, part ten storeys in height.
The single storey element would accommodate car parking and a landscaped garden area above at
first floor level (when viewed from Booth Street). The extension would be located on an area of
hardstanding at the rear of the building. The ten storey element of the proposed extension would
maintain a minimum of 19m from its side elevation to the side elevation of the Textile Apartments.
The proposed side extension would front Blackfriars Street and would infill what is currently a void
between the main building of Conavon Court and the Textile Apartments. It would be four storeys
in height, above an existing single storey element of the building.
A total of thirty three car parking spaces, including three disabled spaces, would be provided within
the lower and upper basement areas of the building. Vehicular access into the car park would be
from Blackfriars Street via the original carriageway opening. Provision for the parking of ten
bicycles would also be made in the upper basement area of the building.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
The ground floor of the building would accommodate a restaurant and a bar, which would be
accessed from Blackfriars Street. At the rear of the building on the ground floor, located within the
proposed rear extension, there would be an office unit. The remaining floors would accommodate
office units, with air conditioning and extraction units contained within the pavilion (ninth floor).
The external elevations of the proposed extensions would be glazed and would be of a modern
design and appearance, as will be discussed in more detail below. Important original features of the
exterior of the existing building, including the chimneys and the viewing room, would be retained
as part of these proposals.
In addition to the proposed extensions and change of use of part of the building, the applicant is
proposing a number of alterations to the interior and exterior of the building. The alterations to the
exterior are relatively minor and mainly involve reinstating original windows within the rear
elevation where these have been bricked up. The remainder of the work to the exterior, including
painting, re-pointing and repairing certain features such as windows, does not require planning
permission. The internal alterations do not require planning permission, but do require listed
building consent. That application appears elsewhere on this agenda.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – no objections
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to conditions requiring a noise
assessment and site investigations, as well as an appropriate fume extraction system.
English Heritage – no objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections
United Utilities – no objections
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – no objections
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 274 The Edge, Clowes Street
Countryside Properties
Apartments 1 – 55 The Gallery, 18 Blackfriars Street
1, 2, 3 Chapel Buildings, 83 Chapel Street
1 – 29, Textile Apartments, 10 Blackfriars Street
10, 11, 18 – 28 (E) Blackfriars Street
65 – 95 (O) Chapel Street
10 Booth Street
1 – 5 Black Lion Court, 75 – 79 Chapel Street
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received letters of objection from eleven local residents in response to the planning
application publicity. I have also received an objection from a neighbouring developer and an
objection from a planning consultant on behalf of a number of local residents. Many of the
objectors have sent in several letters in relation to the various amendments to the scheme. The
following issues have been raised:
Detrimental impact on the Listed Building
Detrimental impact on the Conservation Area
The height, scale and massing of the proposed building is inappropriate
The proposed extension would result in an unacceptable level of overshadowing and loss
of light
The proposed extension is unnecessary
The proposed extension would result in a loss of privacy
The proposed scheme fails to provide adequate amenity space for residents and visitors
Increase in traffic
Increase in noise
The proposed extension would discourage new residents moving into the area
The extension would be too close to neighbouring residential properties
Bats roost in the building
Loss of view
Loss of open space
There would be fumes and odours from the proposed restaurant
The financial information submitted by the applicant is incorrect
Noise and disturbance from building work
Devaluation of property
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP2 – Enhancing the Quality of Life
DP3 – Quality in New Development
SD1 – North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
EC8 – Town Centres – Retail, Leisure and Office Development
UR1 – Urban Renaissance
UR4 – Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
T9 – Demand Management
ER1 – Management of the North West’s Natural, Built and Historic Environment
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CH5/1 – Works Within Conservation Areas
MX1/1 – Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies: ST7 – Mixed Use Development
ST8 – Environmental Quality
ST11 – Location of New Development
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
ST12 – Development Density
ST15 – Historic Environment
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES5 – Tall Buildings
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
DES10 – Design and Crime
DES11 – Design Statements
A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Development
CH1 – Works to, and Demolition of, Listed Buildings
CH2 – Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
CH3 – Works within Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed uses
is acceptable; whether there would be an impact on the setting of listed buildings or the character
and appearance of the conservation area; whether there would be an impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents and whether parking and access arrangements would be satisfactory. I shall
deal with each of these in turn below.
Principle of the Proposed Uses
Policy MX1 highlights Chapel Street East 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.
Policy ST7 states that mixed use development schemes that minimise the need to travel will be
focused towards specific areas including Chapel Street Regeneration Area, Salford Quays, the
Ordsall Lane Riverside Corridor, Lower Broughton, the town centres, neighbourhood centres and
other locations well served by public transport.
Policy ST11 outlines the sequential approach to the bringing forward of land for development and
details the order in which sites for development should be brought forward: existing buildings;
previously developed land which is well served by a choice of means of transport and is well related
to housing, employment, services and infrastructure; previously developed land in other locations
provided that adequate levels of accessibility could be achieved; and finally greenfield sites in
locations which are, or would be made to be, well served by a choice of transport and well related to
employment, services and infrastructure.
The proposed development comprises a mixture of uses, namely offices, a restaurant and a bar.
These accord with the mix of uses outlined in Policy MX1. The proposed restaurant and bar use on
the ground floor of the building would contribute towards increasing activity in the area throughout
the day and in the eveining, given the entrances to the building from Blackfriars Street. The
majority of the building would remain as offices, which is considered appropriate given the existing
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
use of the building. The site is located within the Chapel Street Regeneration Area and is in close
proximity to Manchester City Centre. It is therefore within one of the areas cited in Policy ST7.
Given that the application would bring a semi-vacant building back into use and proposes an
extension on an under-utilised and unattractive piece of land, the proposal is considered to be in
accordance with Policy ST11.
Given that the site is located within the Regional Centre, the principal of office, restaurant and bar
use is considered acceptable and in accordance with RSS Policy EC8.
In light of the above, I consider the proposed mix of uses to be entirely appropriate in this location
and consistent with the relevant polices.
Impact on listed buildings and the conservation area and whether the proposal would respect its
context
Policy CH1 outlines a number of factors to which regard will be had in the consideration of
proposals for the alteration, extension, change of use or demolition, whether partial or total, of a
listed building. These include the effect on the importance of the building, the features of the
building, its setting and contribution to the local scene and the extent to which the proposed works
would bring substantial benefits for the community. It continues to state that such works will only
be permitted where they would preserve or enhance the character and features of special
architectural interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing. The policy states that total or
partial demolition of a listed building, or its change of use, will only be permitted where: it is not
practicable or economically feasible to continue to use the building for its existing or pervious
purpose; it can be clearly demonstrated that there is no other viable use of the building and no other
viable means of securing its preservation; and in relation to total demolition, any proposed
redevelopment or the creation of a cleared site would not cause unacceptable harm to the setting of
any remaining listed buildings. Finally, the policy states that, where consent for demolition is
granted in accordance with the above criteria, it would be subject to a number of conditions,
including the prior approval of detailed plans for the replacement development and the recording of
details of the listed building.
Policy CH2 states that planning permission will only be granted for development that would not
have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any Listed Building.
Policy CH3 states that development within conservation areas will only be permitted where it
would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. Regard will be had to whether
the proposal is of a high standard of design, retains or improves features which contribute to the
character or appearance of the conservation area and protects and improves important views within,
into and out of the conservation area.
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, the quality and
appropriateness of proposed materials and the impact on views.
Policy DES5 sets out twelve circumstances where tall buildings will be permitted. These include
where: the scale of the development is appropriate to its context and location; the location is highly
accessible; the building would positively relate to and interact with the adjacent public realm; the
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
building would be of the highest quality design; it would make a positive addition to the skyline; the
building would not detract from important views; there would be no unacceptable overlooking or
overshadowing; there would be no unacceptable impact on the setting of a listed building or the
character or appearance of a conservation area; there would be no unacceptable impact on
microclimate, telecommunication activity or aviation activity; and would be consistent with other
policies and proposals of the UDP. The reasoned justification confirms that this policy applies to
all buildings and other structures which are significantly higher than surrounding buildings, or
which could have a significant impact on their surroundings by virtue of their height.
Policy ST15 states that the historic and cultural assets that contribute to the character of the city will
be preserved and, wherever possible and appropriate, enhanced.
RSS Policy ER1 advises local authorities to promote a positive approach to the management of the
Region’s natural, built and historic environment and protect it from development likely to cause
harm.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment, is also of relevance.
Paragraph 3.8 states that ‘generally the best way to secure the upkeep of historic buildings is to
keep them in active use.’ It recognises that a building’s original use may no longer be appropriate or
viable. In considering alterations and extensions to listed buildings, paragraph 3.13 states that many
listed buildings can sustain some degree of sensitive alteration or extension to accommodate new
uses. Paragraph 3.15 advises that ‘achieving a proper balance between the special interest of a listed
building and proposals for alterations and extensions is demanding and should always be based on
specialist expertise; but is rarely impossible, if reasonable flexibility and imagination are shown by
all parties involved.’
In relation to conservation areas, paragraph 4.17 of PPG15 states that many conservation areas
include gap sites which make no positive contribution to, or detract from, the character or
appearance of the area, and that their replacement should be seen as an opportunity to enhance the
area. It emphasises that new buildings should not directly imitate earlier styles, but that they should
be designed with respect for their context as part of a larger whole which has a well-established
character and appearance of its own.
The primary and most important elevation of the building is the front elevation facing Blackfriars
Street. This is emphasised by the treatment and architectural detailing of the front elevation, such as
the central round-arched door with marble shafts and moulded architraves, Venetian Gothic
windows and string courses. Such detailing is absent from the rear elevation, which serves to
reinforce the fact that this is, and always has been, a less important elevation. During the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, there were buildings between the rear of Conavon Court and Booth
Street, so the rear elevation of the building was not intended to be as visible as it is today and was
not therefore designed to the same high standard as the front elevation. The area to the rear of
Conavon Court, beyond Booth Street, has changed significantly over recent years, due largely to
The Edge development, which has introduced high rise modern buildings into the area, in close
proximity to the conservation area and a number of listed buildings. Booth Street is now a
cul-de-sac, rather than a through-route, terminated by The Edge buildings.
Given the lesser importance of the rear elevation of Conavon Court and the significant changes
which have taken place around Booth Street over the past few years, I consider that the introduction
of an extension to the rear of the building would be acceptable and would serve to preserve and
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
enhance the character of the conservation area and the listed building. The proposal would result in
the redevelopment of what is currently an underused and unattractive area to the rear of Conavon
Court and its replacement with an extension which would be of a high quality design. This would
serve to improve views within the conservation area, as recognised by PPG 15 and as required by
Policy CH3.
The height of the proposed rear extension relates to the height of the lower elements of The Edge, to
the rear of Conavon Court. In the assessment of the application for The Edge, the height of the
buildings was considered acceptable, given the distance they would be set back from Blackfriars
Street. They were considered to have a positive impact on the area. The principle of a building of a
ten storey building in this location is therefore considered acceptable. The proposed rear extension
would be set back from the main bulk of Conavon Court, thereby reducing its visual impact in
relation to the existing building when viewed from Blackfriars Street. Indeed, views of the
proposed rear extension would be relatively limited at street level from Blackfriars Street and
Chapel Street. In those locations where it would be visible, only the upper floors would be visible
from Blackfriars Street, and the extension would appear as a separate entity, distinct from the main
building. This would also allow the articulation and mass of Conavon Court to remain complete
and for the original front elevation, with chimneys and viewing room, to remain dominant. On this
basis, I am satisfied that the proposed rear extension would not have an unacceptable or dominant
impact on Conavon Court.
The external elevations of the proposed extensions would be predominantly glass. The applicant
has confirmed that glazing was selected to ensure that there would be no unacceptable adverse
impact on the listed building, the conservation area, or the setting of other listed buildings in the
vicinity. The use of different materials from those used in the original building serve to make the
extensions distinct and separate from the original building. The use of relatively few materials and
the uncomplicated architectural style and detailing within the extensions would create a
sympathetic setting to the more elaborately articulated original building. Such an approach is
considered preferable to one which seeks to imitate or replicate the design of an original building,
and is a common approach used when extending listed buildings. The use of such materials is also
considered appropriate given the materials used for surrounding recent developments, such as The
Edge, which also contain a large amount of glazing. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposal
complies with policies CH1 and CH3 in respect of the standard of the design and its contribution to
the preservation and enhancement of the listed building and the conservation area.
Conavon Court was extended in 1914 to fill in a gap which existed between the main building and
the former Textile Institute. The extension was intended to provide a high status entrance to the
building for visitors and customers. The bricks used for the upper floors of this extension are
however poor quality and it has been poorly pointed, particularly when compared to the brickwork
and architectural embellishments of the original building. This would indicate that some form of
infill extension above the single storey entrance was considered at the time of the original design
and construction of the building, but was never carried out. As discussed above, the design and
materials of the extension are considered appropriate, given their modern character and relative
simplicity. The proposed side extension would enhance the character and appearance of the
conservation area and Conavon Court by virtue of its design and materials and through filling a gap
between two buildings where the current architectural detailing is inferior to the remainder of the
building. I therefore consider the proposed side extension to be acceptable and in accordance with
the above policies.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
In considering the proposal’s impact on the setting of adjacent listed buildings, it is important to
consider the application in relation to the Textile Apartments. Given that the proposed side
extension would occupy a gap between the side of Conavon Court and the former Textile Institute,
and that, as discussed above, it is likely that it was always the intention to fill this gap, I consider
that the principle of an extension in this location would not unacceptably impact on the setting of
the former Textile Institute. As discussed above, the proposed materials are considered to be
acceptable, particularly in creating a distinction between the original building and the proposed
new elements. The proposed side extension would also be different to the former Textile Institute in
terms of architectural style and detailing. The front elevation of the former Textile Institute
contains what are almost continuous bands of fenestration at each floor. The upper floors have bays
defined by pilasters, as well as other decorative features. The building is generally very decorative
with considerable architectural detailing. The proposed side extension would, in comparison, be of
a relatively simple design using glazed panels. In relation to height and scale, the former Textile
Institute is five storeys with an attic. The proposed side extension would be similar in height to the
main body of the former Textile Institute, although it would be lower than the highest point of the
former Textile Institute. It would also be relatively narrow.
I consider that the scale, height, materials and design of the proposed side extension are such that it
would appear as a subordinate, rather than a dominant, feature in the street scene and would not
have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the former Textile Institute. I therefore consider that
the proposed side extension complies with Policy CH2.
The proposed rear extension would be higher than the Textile Apartments. However, as discussed
above, views of the proposed rear extension from street level along Blackfriars Street would be
relatively limited, and in those positions where it could be seen, it would appear as a separate entity
to the rest of Conavon Court, given the materials used and the design of the extension. I do not
therefore consider that the proposed rear extension would dominate the street scene along
Blackfriars Street. I acknowledge that, from Booth Street and the Textile Apartments, the proposed
rear extension would be highly visible. I do not however consider that this alone means that there
would be an unacceptable impact on the setting of the former Textile Institute. I have already
discussed that I am of the opinion that the proposed extension would be of a high quality in terms of
its design and the materials used. I have also explained that the extension would be built on what is
currently an unattractive and disused area. In light of all of the above, I therefore consider that the
application would enhance the setting of the listed building and that it accords with Policy CH2.
As discussed above, Policy DES5 relates to tall buildings. The reasoned justification to the policy
advises that the policy applies to all buildings which would be significantly higher than surrounding
buildings, or which could have a significant impact on their surroundings due to their height. Whilst
The Edge development is taller than the proposed development, the proposed rear extension would
be higher than Conavon Court and other surrounding buildings. I therefore consider that the rear
extension should be assessed against the criteria of Policy DES5. I have already discussed the scale
of the proposed rear extension and have concluded that, given its siting to the rear of the building
and its design and materials, its scale would be appropriate and accords with criterion i). As also
discussed above, the site is in close proximity to Manchester City Centre and is therefore highly
accessible by public transport, walking and cycling, in accordance with criterion ii). Although the
rear extension would be adjacent to Booth Street, which is a public highway, there are no other
areas of public realm which would be directly affected by the proposed rear extension, and criterion
iii) of the policy is not therefore directly relevant. As discussed above, I consider the proposed rear
extension to be of a high quality design, due to the proposed materials and its relationship to the
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
listed building and the conservation area. I am therefore satisfied that it complies with criterion iv).
I have considered the impact of the proposed rear extension on the street scene, particularly from
Blackfriars Street and have concluded that where it would be visible, it would serve to enhance the
character and appearance of the area. When viewed from Chapel Street and Blackfriars Stretet, I
consider that it would be seen in the context of The Edge buildings, which are, for the most part,
significantly higher than the proposed extension. I am satisfied that, given the quality of the design
and materials, the proposed rear extension would be a positive addition to the skyline, in
accordance with criterion v). Similarly, I do not consider that the extension would detract from
important views. As discussed, views of the proposed rear extension would be limited from street
level on Blackfriars Street, and where it is visible, it would enhance views. I am therefore satisfied
that it would comply with criterion vi).
Issues relating to overshadowing and overlooking will be discussed in detail in the subsequent
section of this report. However, as will be explained in more detail below, I am satisfied that there
would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents as a result
of this proposal, in accordance with criterion vii). I have discussed in detail the proposed rear
extension’s impact on the setting of the adjacent listed building and on the character and
appearance of the conservation area earlier in this report and have concluded that there would be no
unacceptable impact on its setting, in accordance with criterion viii) of Policy DES5. In relation to
impact on microclimate, I am doubtful whether there would be any unacceptable detrimental
impact, given that the proposed extension would only be ten storeys in height, and that the
buildings immediately adjacent, including the existing part of Conavon Court, the former Textile
Institute, the Gallery apartments, are lower in height. Likewise, given that the extension would only
be ten storeys, I do not consider that there would be any unacceptable impact on
telecommunications activity or aviation safety, in accordance with criteria ix), x) and xi). The
scheme’s compliance with other policies of the UDP will be discussed in more detail below. I am
however of the opinion that it complies with other relevant policies and is therefore in accordance
with criterion xii).
It should be noted that the reasoned justification to Policy DES5 states that tall buildings are more
likely to be appropriate in the mixed use areas. This site is within one of the mixed use areas
identified by Policy MX1, and I therefore consider that this lends support to the application. In light
of the above, I am satisfied that the application accords with all of the criteria of Policy DES5.
It should also be noted that the Council’s conservation officer has been heavily involved in the
formulation of the proposals and has provided feedback to the applicant at pre-application stage and
during the consideration of the planning application. He has confirmed that he has no objections to
the application and that it would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the
conservation area and the listed building, and would not unacceptably harm the setting of the
Textile Apartments.
English Heritage has been consulted on the application, and representatives were involved in
pre-application discussions with the applicant. English Heritage has no objections to the
application.
In view of the advice from both the Council’s conservation officer and English Heritage, I am
satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character or
appearance of the conservation area, Conavon Court itself, or the setting of other adjacent listed
buildings. I consider that the proposal would be a positive addition to the area, resulting in the
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
re-use of a vacant and unattractive piece of land to the rear of the building and would secure the
long term use of the building. I am satisfied that the proposed development would preserve and
enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and the listed building, and would
enhance the setting of adjacent listed buildings. I therefore consider that the application complies
with the above policies.
Impact on Amenity of Neighbouring Residents
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.
A number of neighbouring residents have raised concerns that the proposed development would
impact on their amenity. These concerns largely relate to the proposed rear extension, its height and
its proximity to the former Textile Institute. Residents are concerned that it would result in a loss of
privacy and would have an overbearing impact.
The proposed rear extension includes a landscaped area which would be the equivalent of first floor
level (when viewed from Booth Street, although it is labelled as ground floor on the plans, due to
the change in levels between the front and rear of the building). This would be a minimum of 4.6m
from the side of the Textile Apartments. However, given that it would be relatively similar in height
to the first floor of the Textile Apartments, I do not consider that it would have an overbearing
impact on the residents of that building. The ten storey element of the side elevation of the proposed
extension would be a minimum of 19m from the side elevation of the Textile Apartments. This
would increase to a maximum of 20m closest to Booth Street. There are main habitable room
windows within the side elevation of the Textile Apartments. In relation to overlooking and loss of
privacy, the applicant has tried to address the concerns of residents by providing samples of the
glazing which would be used for the building. Although different types of glazing would be used
for the elevations, the samples submitted would be obscure, to prevent occupiers of the office units
within the proposed extension from looking into the habitable rooms of the apartments within the
former Textile Institute. Given that the extension would be used for commercial, and not residential
purposes, and in light of the materials to be used for the proposed extension, I am satisfied that there
would be no unacceptable detrimental impact due to overlooking.
Residents of the Textile Apartments are also concerned about the overbearing impact of the
proposed rear extension, given that there are habitable room windows within the side elevation. I
acknowledge that the proposed rear extension would be ten storeys in height and that it would result
in the introduction of a ten storey building where there is currently just hardstanding. I also
acknowledge that residents of the Textile Apartments would experience some loss of light as a
result of the proposed rear extension. It is however necessary to establish whether the loss of light
as a result of the development would be acceptable, and this must then be considered against the
benefits of the proposal. In order to assist with this consideration, the applicant was requested to
submit information relating to shadowing and loss of light as a result of the proposal, which the
applicant has provided. From this information, I accept that residents of the Textile Apartments
would experience some loss of light as a direct result of the proposed rear extension. However, the
building is already surrounded by relatively tall buildings, particularly since The Edge buildings
were constructed and I do not therefore consider that the proposed rear extension would
significantly, or unacceptably, alter this situation. It should also be noted that the site is within the
Regional Centre, close to Manchester City Centre and within the Chapel Street Regeneration Area,
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
where high density development is encouraged in order to make the most efficient use of land. In
such areas, it is unusual, and not often appropriate given the need to achieve high density
development, for residents to have the same level of outlook or benefit from the same level of light
as those who reside in suburban or rural areas. The distance of 19m between the ten storey element
of the rear extension and the side elevation of the former Textile Institute is comparable to the
relationship between the different blocks of The Edge, which are mainly residential and directly
face each other, and actually exceeds the relationship between other properties in the area, such as
The Edge and the Chapel Wharf developments, where there would be approximately 12m between
facing habitable room windows. Taking all of the above into account, I consider that there would be
no unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of residents of the Textile Apartments by virtue
of overlooking, loss of privacy or loss of light. I am therefore satisfied that the application accords
with Policy DES7 in this regard.
The ten storey element of the proposed rear extension would, from the information supplied by the
applicant, be a minimum of 9.6m from Bock D of The Edge development. It would not directly face
any of the other buildings constructed as part of The Edge development. Although there are
habitable room windows within the elevation of Block D, these rooms have other windows with
different outlooks, and I do not therefore consider that the proposed rear extension would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of residents of this building. Notwithstanding this, I consider
that, as the proposed rear extension does not directly face the whole of the side elevation of Block
D, residents of that building would still have an acceptable outlook.
The proposed rear extension would be located adjacent to the side elevation of the Gallery building,
which is used for residential purposes. There are no main habitable room windows within the side
elevation of the Gallery building, as these front Booth Street. I do not therefore consider that the
proposed rear extension would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of those
residents.
One objector is also concerned about loss of view. It is well established that there is no right to a
view which the planning system should protect. This is not therefore a material planning
consideration, and is not a matter which can be afforded any weight in the determination of this
planning application. I have already discussed the positive impact the proposal would have on
views into and within the conservation area, due to the redevelopment of an unattractive site with a
high quality modern building which respects its surroundings. I therefore have no objections to the
application in this regard.
Residents have also raised concerns relating to increases in noise as a result of the proposal. In
relation to noise, I am doubtful whether the additional office space created as a result of this
proposal would result in a significant increase in noise. The offices within the building can at
present operate 24 hours a day, seven days per week, and I do not therefore consider it necessary or
reasonable to restrict the hours of operation of the offices within the proposed extensions. In
addition, the site is located in close proximity to Manchester City Centre, within the Regional
Centre and close to the junction of two busy roads. There is therefore a high level of activity in the
area during the day and evening, in terms of traffic, pedestrians and other neighbouring uses. The
background noise levels in the area are therefore relatively high, and I do not therefore consider that
any increases in noise would be unacceptable. Noise from construction activity is an inevitable
consequence of development and only occurs for temporary periods. In view of this, I do not
consider that these concerns warrant the refusal of the application.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
Finally, residents have raised concerns regarding fumes and odours from the proposed restaurant,
and the impact of any extraction systems on the appearance of the building. To address this, the
applicant has submitted a plan showing the location of the proposed services and fume extraction
system within the pavilion area of the proposed rear extension, as well as a fume and ventilation
extraction strategy. The applicant has confirmed that no extraction or ventilation equipment would
be positioned on the side or rear elevations of the proposed rear extension. Given their location
within the pavilion of the proposed rear extension, they would not be visible from the surrounding
area and would not therefore impact on the character or appearance of the conservation area or the
listed building.
Parking and Access
Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would compromise highway
safety by virtue of traffic generation and access.
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
Policy T9 of RSS advises local authorities to develop maximum parking standards, which should
be more restrictive in urban areas to reflect characteristics such as higher levels of public transport
accessibility.
A total of thirty-three car parking spaces would be provided within the scheme, in addition to
facilities for the parking of ten bicycles. The site is located within the Regional Centre and on the
border with Manchester City Centre. It is therefore situated in a highly accessible location, in close
proximity to a range of public transport facilities, including bus, train and Metrolink services. I
therefore consider it essential, and in accordance with national and local planning policies, that car
parking provision within the proposed development is kept to a minimum in order to encourage the
use of modes of transport other than the car. I consider thirty-three spaces to be an appropriate
number, given the site’s location and in view of the level of floorspace within the building and I am
satisfied that the proposal complies with the thrust of national and local planning policies. I have
attached a condition requiring the car parking spaces and cycle parking provision to be provided in
accordance with the plans submitted.
Given the relatively limited number of car parking spaces proposed, I do not consider that the
proposed development would generate a significant amount of traffic, and I am satisfied that the
road network would have the capacity to deal with any increase. I therefore have no objections to
the proposal in highway safety terms and consider the application to be entirely consistent with the
relevant policies in this regard.
Other Issues
Objectors to the application have raised a number of other concerns in relation to the proposals.
In response to residents’ concerns relating to bats, the applicant has submitted a bat survey. This
has revealed that there was no evidence of bats using Conavon Court and that, when the survey was
undertaken, given the absence of suitable foraging areas in the immediate vicinity, the building is
considered of only limited potential for bats and is very unlikely to represent a main roost site.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
Notwithstanding this, a further survey is recommended. I have therefore attached a condition
requiring a further survey to be undertaken prior to the commencement of the development.
Comments have also been received from neighbouring residents that the proposed extensions are
unnecessary. In response to this, I would comment that it is unusual for developers to propose
developments unless they are themselves satisfied that there is a need for what they are proposing,
and I consider that, in this situation, the need for the extension is a commercial decision for the
applicant rather than a material planning consideration.
Concern has been raised that the proposal would discourage new residents from moving into the
area. Given my comments in the previous sections of this report, and my conclusions that the
proposal would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and the
listed building, that it would result in the redevelopment of an unattractive site and the return of the
whole of the building into active use, I see no reason to assume that the proposal would discourage
people from moving into the area. As stated above, I am of the opinion that the proposal would be
an improvement to the area.
One resident has objected to the application on the basis that it would result in the loss of open
space. As discussed above, the proposed rear extension would be built on an area of hardstanding,
which I do not consider to constitute ‘open space’. I therefore have no objections to the application
in this regard.
There has been an objection to the failure of the proposal to provide adequate amenity space for
residents and visitors. The objector does not however provide more details in respect of this issue,
and I am not therefore clear on exactly what the objector’s concerns are. The Council’s policies do
not require applicants proposing commercial schemes to provide amenity space for residents of
adjoining properties.
There have been objections asserting that the proposal will result in the devaluation of adjacent
properties. The value of land and property is not a material planning consideration and is not
therefore a matter which can be afforded any weight in the determination of this application.
Residents have also raised the issue of ‘right to light’. Whilst impact on the amenity of residents is
a material planning consideration, which encompasses issues relating to loss of light, right to light
is a separate legal issue. Individuals’ right to light is protected in England and Wales under
common law, adverse possession or by the Prescription Act 1832, and not by the planning system.
In some circumstances, it may be possible for development to be prevented even though planning
permission has been granted, but this should not carry any weight in the determination of this
planning application.
Finally, objectors are concerned relating to the financial information submitted by the applicant in
relation to the need for the proposed extensions. Objectors are concerned that the information
submitted is incorrect and that there is no need, in financial terms, for the proposed extensions and
that the application should therefore be refused. I have already discussed the need for the proposed
development above, and have confirmed that the need for this type of development is a matter for
the applicant to consider.
The applicants have requested that the time limit for the commencement of the development be
extended from three years to five years. They are concerned that there are a number of
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
pre-commencement conditions which need to be dealt with and that an additional two years would
allow them extra time in which to satisfy these requirements. I have no objections to extending the
time period in this instance, particularly if it will enable the listed building to be re-used and
refurbished.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The current proposals have been formulated following lengthy discussions with the applicant,
involving the Council’s conservation officer, English Heritage and Urban Vision. These
discussions have resulted in significant improvements to the scheme, including an increase in the
distance between the proposed extension and the Textile Apartments and the use of appropriate
high quality materials for the external elevations of the proposed extensions.
In addition to the above, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution to environmental
improvements within the vicinity of the site in accordance with the Council’s Policy Note on
planning obligations within the Chapel Street Regeneration area. Given that the existing building is
already in use as offices, albeit that some of the floorspace is currently vacant, I consider it
reasonable to require the applicant to make a contribution in respect of the new floorspace created
as a result of the proposed extensions. The Policy Note requires £10 per square meter. The
applicant has confirmed that the proposed new floorspace created as a result of the proposed
extensions would be 4,351sqm. The contribution therefore agreed would be £43,510. I have
attached a condition in relation to this matter.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve and enhance the character and
appearance of the conservation area and the listed buildings. The proposal would secure the
continued use of the building for appropriate purposes in this part of the city and would, due to its
high quality design and materials, be a positive addition to the area. I am satisfied that there would
be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of loss of
privacy, overlooking or overshadowing and that there would be no unacceptable impact on
highway safety. I am of the opinion that the application accords with the provisions of the relevant
national and local planning policies. I therefore recommend that the application is approved and
that authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services to enter into a
legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the
date of this permission.
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for
the 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.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
3. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an
identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled
waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health
and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping
schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved
report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the LPA.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme providing full
details of the fume extraction system serving the restaurant shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full
prior to first use of the restaurant and retained at all times the restaurant is in use.
5. Prior to first occupation of the extensions hereby approved, a travel plan shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a plan shall provide details of
the objectives, targets and measures to promote and facilitate public transport use, walking,
cycling and practices/facilities to reduce the need to travel and to reduce car use. It shall also
provide details of its management, monitoring and review mechanisms, travel plan
coordination, and the provision of travel information and marketing. The initiatives contained
within the approved plan shall be implemented and shall be in place prior to the first occupation
of the extensions hereby approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
6. No development approved by this permission shall commence until further survey work has
been undertaken to discover the location of possible bat roosts present within the building. If
roost sites are identified, a method statement detailing the measures to be taken to mitigate
against any disturbance to bats and the timescales involved in such mitigation should be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved method
statement shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved timescales.
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 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 improvement purposes.
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
8. The car parking spaces shall be laid out in accordance with drawing numbers 0795(02)01 Rev
D and 0795(02)02 Rev D (or any subsequent approved amendments) prior to first occupation
of the extensions hereby approved and shall be available at all times the premises is in use.
9. The cycle parking facilities shown on drawing number 0795(02)02 Rev D (or any subsequent
approved amendments) shall be provided prior to first occupation of the extensions hereby
approved and shall be available at all times the premises is in use.
10. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme showing the
provision of refuse 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 first occupation of the extensions hereby approved and shall be available
at all times the premises is in use.
11. Prior to first use of the car parking areas hereby approved, the existing gates at the vehicular
entrance to the building from Blackfriars Street shall be relocated a minimum of 5.5m from the
back of the footpath, in accordance with the details shown on Drawing No. 0795(02)03 Rev F.
12. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the landscaped
area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment and shall be carried out within twenty four 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 R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. Reason: In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance
with Policy A1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
6. Reason: In order to ensure than legally protected species are not unacceptably affected, in
accordance with Policy EN7E of the Unitary Development Plan.
7. Reason: To ensure the residential development provides appropriate environmental
improvements within the Chapel Street Area in accordance with Salford City Council
Development Control Policy Note - The Use of Planning Obligations in the Chapel Street Area
8. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
9. Reason: In order to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with
Policy A10 of the Unitary Development Plan.
10. Reason: In order to encourage high standards of environmental management, in accordance
with Policy ST8 of the Unitary Development Plan.
11. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
12. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the basement areas may be vulnerable to flooding.
2. The applicant is advised that connections to the sewers will require approval from United
Utilities.
3. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the following plans:
0795(00)00 Rev B
0795(00)01 Rev C
0795(00)02 Rev C
0795(00)03 Rev C
0795(00)04 Rev C
0795(00)05 Rev C
0795(00)06 Rev C
0795(00)07 Rev C
0795(00)07 Rev C
0795(00)08 Rev C
0795(00)09 Rev C
0795(00)10 Rev C
0795(00)12 Rev B
0795(00)13 Rev B
0795(01)01 Rev C
0795(01)02 Rev C
0795(01)03 Rev C
0795(01)04 Rev C
0795(01)05 Rev C
0795(01)06 Rev C
0795(01)07 Rev C
0795(01)08 Rev C
0795(01)09 Rev C
0795(01)10 Rev C
0795(01)12 Rev C
0795(01)13 Rev C
0795(02)00 Rev C
0795(02)01 Rev D
0795(02)02 Rev D
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
0795(02)03 Rev F
0795(02)04 Rev D
0795(02)05 Rev D
0795(02)06 Rev D
0795(02)07 Rev E
0795(02)08 Rev D
0795(02)09 Rev D
0795(02)10 Rev D
0795(02)11 Rev D
0795(02)12 Rev D
0795(02)13 Rev F
0795(02)14 Rev E
0795(02)15 Rev E
0795(02)16 Rev D
0795(02)19 Rev C
0795(02)20 Rev C
0795(02)21 Rev E
0795(02)22 Rev B
0795(02)23 Rev A
0795(02)24 Rev A
0795(02)25 Rev B
0795(02)18 Rev C
0795(02)28
APPLICATION No:
04/49487/LBC
APPLICANT:
Adam Geoffrey Management Limited
LOCATION:
Conavon Court 12-16 Blackfriars Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for internal and external alterations to
the existing building, cleaning of the interior and exterior and
the erection of a part single/part ten storey rear extension and
four storey side extension
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
Conavon Court is a five storey former warehouse and office building. It is Grade II listed and
situated within the Flat Iron Conservation Area, close to the junction of Blackfriars Street and
Chapel Street. Part of the building is currently in use as offices, although large parts of the building
are vacant.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
The surrounding area comprises a mix of uses. 10 Blackfriars Street (the former Textile Institute,
now the Textile Apartments) and 18 Blackfriars Street (The Gallery), on either side of Conavon
Court, are both in residential use in the form of apartments. Adjacent to the former Textile Institute,
which is a Grade II listed building, is a public house, beyond which are other commercial properties
which front Chapel Street, with some residential accommodation at first floor level. On the
opposite side of Chapel Street is the Sacred Trinity Church, which is a Grade II* listed building. On
the opposite side of Blackfriars Street is Dial House, which is used for telecommunications
purposes, and a hotel. A new apartment block is currently under construction at the junction of
Blackfriars Street and Chapel Street. To the rear of Conavon Court is Booth Street, beyond which is
The Edge development, which comprises several buildings which are predominantly used for
residential purposes.
The proposed rear extension to Conavon Court would be part single storey, part ten storeys in
height, with a single storey element which would accommodate car parking and a landscaped
garden area. It would be located on an area of hardstanding at the rear of the building. The proposed
extension would maintain a minimum of 19m from its side elevation to the side elevation of the
Textile Apartments. The proposed side extension would front Blackfriars Street and would infill
what is currently a void between the main building of Conavon Court and the former Textile
Institute. It would be four storeys in height, above an existing single storey element of the building.
The external elevations of the proposed extensions would be glazed and would be of a modern
design and appearance, as will be discussed in more detail below. Important original features of the
exterior of the existing building, including the chimneys and the viewing room, would be retained
as part of these proposals.
The work to the exterior of the building includes repairing external joinery, cleaning the building’s
faēade, re-pointing the external brickwork, painting the existing windows and cills within the front
and rear elevations and in some instances replacing windows within the rear elevation, installing
steel bars to the basement windows fronting Blackfriars Street, altering the existing rear elevation
in order to accommodate the proposed rear extension and repairing/replacing existing brickwork,
stonework, roof coverings, gutters, flashings and parapets. In addition, the existing garage building
at the rear of the site would be demolished.
The proposed work to the interior of the building largely involves the removal of the non-original
doors, partitions and column casings in order to create a more open plan environment, cleaning
internal features, making good existing features which are to be retained, inserting a mezzanine
floor between the first floor and second floor and removing a staircase between the basement and
the second floor.
In addition to the above works, the applicant is also proposing to change the use of part of the
ground floor of the existing building to a restaurant. This does not require listed building consent,
but is the subject of a separate application for planning permission. That application appears
elsewhere on this agenda.
CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage – no objections
Victorian Society – no comments received to date
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
Georgian Group – no comments received to date
Ancient Monuments Society – no comments received to date
The Council for British Archaeology – no comments received to date
Society Protection of Ancient Buildings – no comments received to date
PUBLICITY
The application has been publicised by site and press notices
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 274 The Edge, Clowes Street
Countryside Properties
Apartments 1 – 55 The Gallery, 18 Blackfriars Street
1, 2, 3 Chapel Buildings, 83 Chapel Street
1 – 29, Textile Apartments, 10 Blackfriars Street
10, 11, 18 – 28 (E) Blackfriars Street
65 – 95 (O) Chapel Street
10 Booth Street
1 – 5 Black Lion Court, 75 – 79 Chapel Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received letters of objection from three local residents in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:
Loss of light
The proposed extensions are unnecessary
Devaluation of adjacent properties
Detrimental impact on listed buildings and the conservation area
Loss of view
Loss of privacy and overlooking
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP3 – Quality in New Development
ER1 – Management of the North West’s Natural, Built and Historic Environment
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CH5/1 – Works Within Conservation Areas
MX1/1 – Development in Mixed Use Areas
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
Other policies: ST15 – Historic Environment
CH1 – Works to, and Demolition of, Listed Buildings
CH4 – Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issue in relation to this application is whether the proposed works would have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on Conavon Court.
Policy CH1 outlines a number of factors to which regard will be had in the consideration of
proposals for the alteration, extension, change of use or demolition, whether partial or total, of a
listed building. These include the effect on the importance of the building, the features of the
building, its setting and contribution to the local scene and the extent to which the proposed works
would bring substantial benefits for the community. It continues to state that such works will only
be permitted where they would preserve or enhance the character and features of special
architectural interest that contribute to the reasons for its listing. The policy states that total or
partial demolition of a listed building, or its change of use, will only be permitted where: it is not
practicable or economically feasible to continue to use the building for its existing or pervious
purpose; it can be clearly demonstrated that there is no other viable use of the building and no other
viable means of securing its preservation; and in relation to total demolition, any proposed
redevelopment or the creation of a cleared site would not cause unacceptable harm to the setting of
any remaining listed buildings. Finally, the policy states that, where consent for demolition is
granted in accordance with the above criteria, it would be subject to a number of conditions,
including the prior approval of detailed plans for the replacement development and the recording of
details of the listed building.
Policy CH2 states that planning permission will only be granted for development that would not
have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any Listed Building.
Policy ST15 states that the historic and cultural assets that contribute to the character of the city will
be preserved and, wherever possible and appropriate, enhanced.
RSS Policy ER1 advises local authorities to promote a positive approach to the management of the
Region’s natural, built and historic environment and protect it from development likely to cause
harm.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment, is also of relevance.
Paragraph 3.8 states that ‘generally the best way to secure the upkeep of historic buildings is to
keep them in active use.’ It recognises that a building’s original use may no longer be appropriate or
viable. In considering alterations and extensions to listed buildings, paragraph 3.13 states that many
listed buildings can sustain some degree of sensitive alteration or extension to accommodate new
uses. Paragraph 3.15 advises that ‘achieving a proper balance between the special interest of a listed
building and proposals for alterations and extensions is demanding and should always be based on
specialist expertise; but is rarely impossible, if reasonable flexibility and imagination are shown by
all parties involved.’
The primary and most important elevation of the building is the front elevation facing Blackfriars
Street. This is emphasised by the treatment and architectural detailing of the front elevation, such as
the central round-arched door with marble shafts and moulded architraves, Venetian Gothic
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
windows and string courses. Such detailing is absent from the rear elevation, which serves to
reinforce the fact that this is, and always has been, a less important elevation. During the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, there were buildings between the rear of Conavon Court and Booth
Street, so the rear elevation of the building was not intended to be as visible as it is today and was
not therefore designed to the same high standard as the front elevation. The area to the rear of
Conavon Court, beyond Booth Street, has changed significantly over recent years, due largely to
The Edge development, which has introduced high rise modern buildings into the area, in close
proximity to the conservation area and a number of listed buildings. Booth Street is now a
cul-de-sac, rather than a through-route, terminated by The Edge buildings.
The height of the proposed rear extension relates to the height of the lower elements of The Edge, to
the rear of Conavon Court. The principle of a building of this height is therefore considered
acceptable. In the assessment of the application for The Edge, the height of the buildings was
considered acceptable, given the distance they would be set back from Blackfriars Street. They
were considered to have a positive impact on the area. The proposed rear extension would be set
back from the main bulk of Conavon Court, thereby reducing its visual impact when viewed from
Blackfriars Street. Indeed, views of the proposed rear extension would be relatively limited at street
level from Blackfriars Street and Chapel Street, and where it is visible, it would appear as a separate
entity, distinct from the main building. This would also allow the articulation and mass of Conavon
Court to remain complete and for the original front elevation, with chimneys and viewing room, to
remain dominant.
The external elevations of the proposed extensions would be predominantly glass. The applicant
has confirmed that glazing was selected to ensure that there would be no unacceptable adverse
impact on the listed building. The use of different materials from those used in the original building
serve to make the extensions distinct and separate from the original building. The use of relatively
few materials and uncomplicated architectural style and detailing within the extensions would
create a more sympathetic setting to the more elaborately articulated original building. Such an
approach is considered preferable to one which seeks to imitate or replicate the design of an
original building, and is a common approach used when extending listed buildings. The use of such
materials is also considered appropriate given the materials used for surrounding recent
developments, such as The Edge, which also contains a large amount of glazing. I am therefore of
the opinion that the proposal complies with Policies CH1 in respect of the standard of the design
and its contribution to the preservation and enhancement of the character and special features of the
listed building.
Conavon Court was extended in 1914 to fill in a gap which existed between the main building and
the former Textile Institute. This extension comprises part single/part four storey elements, fronting
Blackfriars Street. It was intended to provide a high status entrance to the building for visitors and
customers. The bricks used for the upper floors of this extension are however poor quality and it has
been poorly pointed, particularly when compared to the brickwork and architectural
embellishments of the original building. This would indicate that some form of infill extension
above the single storey entrance was considered at the time of the original design and construction
of the building, but was never carried out. In view of this, I have no objections to the principle of an
extension in this location and do not consider that it would be detrimental to the character or
appearance of the building. As discussed above, the design and materials of the extension are
considered appropriate, given their modern character and relative simplicity. The proposed side
extension would enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and Conavon Court
by virtue of its design and materials and through filling a gap between two buildings where the
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
current architectural detailing is inferior to the remainder of the building. I therefore consider the
proposed side extension to be acceptable and in accordance with Policy CH1.
As discussed earlier in this report, the work to the exterior of the building includes repairing
external joinery, cleaning the building’s faēade, re-pointing the external brickwork, painting the
existing windows and cills within the front and rear elevations and in some instances replacing
windows within the rear elevation, installing steel bars to the basement windows fronting
Blackfriars Street, altering the existing rear elevation in order to accommodate the proposed rear
extension, repairing/replacing existing brickwork, stonework, roof coverings, gutters, flashings and
parapets, as well as the demolition of the existing garage building at the rear of the site. I have no
objections to the principle of any of these works, as they would serve to improve the appearance of
the building. I have however attached conditions requiring the submission and approval of samples
or details of the materials to be used for these works in order to ensure they are of a sufficiently high
standard and in keeping with the rest of the building.
The proposed work to the interior of the building largely involves the removal of the non-original
doors, partitions and column casings in order to create a more open plan environment, making good
existing features which are to be retained, inserting a mezzanine floor between the first floor and
second floor, undertaking cleaning and removing a staircase between the basement and the second
floor. Many of the partitions are modern additions to the building and some are of a particularly
crude construction. The column casings, which are also modern additions, are largely considered to
be ungainly and intrusive and detrimental to the listed building. As with the proposed external
alterations, I have no objection to the principle of the proposed internal alterations and consider that
they would result in significant improvements to the building. I have however attached conditions
requiring the submission and approval of samples or details of materials in order to ensure they are
of a sufficiently high standard and in keeping with the rest of the building.
Although I have no objections to the removal of the staircase between the basement and the second
floor, as I do not consider it to a significantly important architectural or historic feature within the
building, it constitutes the substantial demolition of part of the interior of the building. As a result,
and should Members be minded to approve the application, it would need to be referred to the
Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Planning (Listed Building &
Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
The applicant also proposes to clean the interior and exterior of the building, again to improve its
appearance. The cleaning of listed buildings often requires consent as the processes involved can,
as confirmed in PPG15, have a marked effect on the character of buildings and affect the historic
fabric. I have therefore attached a condition requiring the submission of a scheme detailing the
cleaning methods and processes to be submitted and approved in order to ensure that they do not
harm or destroy any of the building’s important detailing. Subject to compliance with all of the
conditions discussed above, I am satisfied that the proposal complies with Policy CH1.
It should be noted that the Council’s conservation officer has been heavily involved in the
formulation of the proposals and has provided feedback to the applicant at pre-application stage and
during the consideration of this application. He has confirmed that he has no objections to the
application and that it would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the listed
building.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
English Heritage has been consulted on the application, and representatives were involved in
pre-application discussions with the applicant. English Heritage has no objections to the
application.
In view of the advice from both the Council’s conservation officer and English Heritage, I am
satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character or
appearance of Conavon Court itself. I consider that the proposal would be a positive addition to the
area, resulting in the re-use of a vacant and unattractive piece of land to the rear of the building and
would secure the long term use of the building. I am satisfied that the proposed development would
preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the listed building. I therefore consider that
the application complies with the above policies.
Other Issues
Issues relating to loss of light, the need for the extensions, the value of adjacent properties, loss of
view and loss of privacy are not considerations in the determination of applications for listed
building consent. These issues cannot therefore be afforded any weight in the consideration of this
application, but they have been taken into account in the assessment of the planning application,
and are discussed in detail in that report.
The applicants have requested that the time limit for the commencement of the development be
extended from three years to five years. They are concerned that there are a number of
pre-commencement conditions which need to be dealt with and that an additional two years would
allow them extra time in which to satisfy these requirements. I have no objections to extending the
time period in this instance, particularly if it will enable the listed building to be re-used and
refurbished.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The current proposals have been formulated following lengthy discussions with the applicant,
involving the Council’s conservation officer, English Heritage and Urban Vision. These
discussions have resulted in significant improvements to the scheme, including an increase in the
distance between the proposed extension and the Textile Apartments and the use of appropriate
high quality materials for the external elevations of the proposed extensions.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve and enhance the character and special
features of the listed building. The proposed alterations and extensions would secure the continued
use of the building and would, due to its high quality design and materials, be a positive addition. I
am satisfied that the internal and external alterations proposed would not result in the removal of
any features of special architectural or historic significance and that the conditions attached would
ensure that the alterations would be of a high quality and in keeping with the listed building. I am of
the opinion that the application accords with the provisions of the relevant national and local
planning policies. I therefore recommend that Members be minded to approve the application
subject to referral to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Planning (Listed Building &
Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the
date of this permission.
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the following
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: materials for
the external elevations and roofs of the extensions; materials for the mezzanine floor; bricks,
roof materials, flashings, gutters and parapets required for repair of the external elevations of
the existing building; frames, glazing bars and glazing for the replacement windows to the
existing building; rooflights; new floor materials for the existing building; and materials for
new internal walls within the existing building. The work shall be carried out using the
approved samples, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the following
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: colour of the
paint to be used for the window surrounds, window glazing bars and cills; colour of the mortar
to be used for the re-pointing and repairs to the brickwork; colour, design and material of
replacement and new doors; colour, design and height of the steel bars to the basement
windows within the front elevation of the building; and the dimensions, colour and precise
location of the steel hangers for the mezzanine floor. The work shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the cleaning of
the internal features and external elevations of the existing building shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include details of the
cleaning processes involved. The cleaning of the internal features and external elevations of the
existing building shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
2. Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building
4. Reason: In order to preserve and enhance the character and special features of the listed
building, in accordance with Policy CH1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
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
APPLICATION No:
06/52390/FUL
APPLICANT:
M C & S K Keegan
LOCATION:
224A Worsley Road Swinton M27 0YF
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing building and erection of one pair of
semi-detached houses together with associated car parking
(re-submission of planning application 05/51617/FUL)
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a building at 224A Worsley Road in Swinton. The existing building has
two garages on the ground floor and the first floor is used as office/workshop accommodation. The
adjoining property is a residential dwelling (224 Worsley Road), to the east is a bowling green and
clubhouse, to the south are terraced properties of which one is a chiropodist (2 Folly Lane) and to
the west are houses. The application site is located close to the junction of Worsley Road and Folly
Lane.
The application proposal is to demolish the existing building and erect one pair of semi-detached
dwellings together with associated car parking. The new dwellings would be 5m in width,
approximately 7.5m in length and approximately 9.3m in height. There would be 6.4m from the
back of the footpath, set behind the front of the existing adjacent property. There would be a rear
garden for each property, with car parking to the front.
SITE HISTORY
In November 2001, planning permission was granted to change the use
from a single family dwelling and granny flat into two separate
dwellings and construction of apex roof over existing flat roof
(01/43049/FUL).
In April 2005 an application was received for the ‘Demolition of
existing dwelling and erection of one pair semi detached dwellings
together with associated car parking’ (05/50579/FUL).
The
application was withdrawn by the applicant to rethink the parking
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
provision at the front of the properties as the layout was not
considered to be acceptable.
Another application for the same
proposal (05/51617/FUL) received in October 2005 was also withdrawn,
as the parking layout where each property’s car would have to
manoeuvre around the other to enter and exit the shared driveway was
not considered to be acceptable.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2, 4, & 6 Morpeth Street
Worsley Road Bowling Green
224, 226, 253, 255, 257 and 225 Worsley Road
2, 4, 6 & 8 Folly Lane
96 Heathlands, Lancaster Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received six letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
Loss of light
Loss of privacy
Access onto Folly Lane being dangerous
Overdevelopment
Responsibility for water and electricity supplies
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 - Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposal is
acceptable; whether the proposal would seriously injure the amenity of existing residential
properties, whether there would be an unacceptable impact on the street scene and whether there
would be any highway safety issues.
Principle
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
Policy H1 states new housing should contribute to a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area
and provide a high quality residential environment with an adequate level of amenity. The area is
predominantly residential with a mix of detached, semi-detached, terraced properties and
apartments and so the proposed semi-detached properties would contribute to the mix. I have
attached a condition requiring samples of materials to be submitted and approved in writing to
ensure a high level of quality and there would be amenity space provided for future occupants. I am
therefore of the opinion the principle of the proposal is acceptable.
Amenity
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The existing office/workshop building at 224A is attached to a residential property. The building
would be demolished and replaced with a pair of semi-detached dwellings, which would leave 224
Worsley Road as a detached property. There would be windows introduced within both gables,
however they would all be obscure glazed as they would be for a WC on the ground floor and
landing windows on the first and second floors. There are no habitable room windows on the gable
of 2 Folly Lane which is now a chiropodists. The residential properties to the front and the rear of
the site are a significant distance away from the application site and therefore there would not be
any unacceptable overlooking or loss or privacy for future occupiers or existing neighbours.
The proposed semi-detached dwellings would be sited 2m further back from Folly Lane than the
existing building, which results in them projecting further to the rear. They would not project past
the rear of the conservatory at 224 Worsley Road and as the height of the semis would be the same
as the existing building I do not consider there would be a significant loss of light or overshadowing
to the occupiers of number 224. Number 224 also has a garden area to the north which would not
be affected at all.
The scheme would provide private amenity space to the rear. I do not consider the proposal would
result in the overdevelopment of the site as sufficient parking and amenity space would be
provided. I therefore consider the scheme to be acceptable in terms of providing future occupiers
with a satisfactory level of amenity without having an unacceptable impact on neighbouring
properties which complies with DES7.
Design
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.
There are a mixture of styles and materials in the immediate vicinity
from number 224 being rendered and the nearby terraces being red
brick. There are also new apartments at 251/253 Worsley Road under
construction where the existing dwellings have been demolished and
a three storey building comprising 22 apartments is being erected with
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
a five car garage with apartment above (05/50381/FUL), and so the
character of the area is changing.
The nearest neighbouring properties do not have dormers in the front
roof spaces. However as the proposed dormers would be relatively
small and set in from the eaves and be below the ridgeline I consider
them to be acceptable, as they would not have an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the street scene. As previously mentioned I
have attached a condition requiring samples of materials to be
submitted and approved in writing to ensure a high level of quality.
I therefore consider the proposal complies with policy DES1.
Car Parking
Policy A10 states that the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded. Each property
would have a driveway for one car to be parked clear of the highway.
There is an existing access for the site onto Folly Lane and two garages on the site at present. The
building has been in operation as business premises for approximately the last 12 years with
staff/deliveries using the access and existing driveway. Vehicles currently reverse onto Folly Lane
from number 224A and so it is not considered the situation where only two vehicles would reverse
onto Folly Lane could be considered to be worse. I therefore have no highway safety objections.
I have attached a condition for a plan to be submitted to show the area to the front of the properties
and its layout of each driveway and landscaping. The driveway should be perpendicular to the road
with an adjacent front garden for each property.
Other issues
The responsibility of what will happen with water and electricity supplies to both 224 and the
proposed new dwellings is a private matter between the landowners, this is not a planning
consideration.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the proposed semi-detached dwellings are acceptable, as they would
not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the nearby residential properties in
terms of overshadowing, overlooking or loss of privacy. I am of the opinion that the proposal
complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations
which outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
the external elevations and roof of the buildings 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. Notwithstanding the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development a plan to
show the layout of the area to the front of each property shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall show one car parking space per
dwelling that is perpendicular to the road and an adjacent front garden area for each dwelling.
The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the semi-detached
properties hereby approved.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
APPLICATION No:
06/52536/HH
APPLICANT:
Janine Renshaw
LOCATION:
15 Harbourne Close Worsley M28 7UA
PROPOSAL:
Retention of dormers in front roofspace, bay windows on front
elevation, conservatory on the rear of the dwelling and first
floor rear extension
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi-detached property on Harbourne Close in Walkden.
There is a previous planning application on this site for the erection of part single, part two storey
side extension, a first floor rear extension, a rear conservatory together with front dormers and a
first floor front extension approved by the panel on the 20th October 2005 (Reference
06/51222/HH). Work has commenced on site but the development has not been built in accordance
with the approved plans.
This application therefore seeks to regularise the situation and gain approval to retain the
extensions and alterations already undertaken. Therefore this application is for the retention of
dormers in front roofspace, bay windows on front elevation, conservatory on the rear of the
dwelling and first floor rear extension.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
SITE HISTORY
There is one previous application on this site for the erection of part single, part two storey side
extension, a first floor rear extension, a rear conservatory together with front dormers and a first
floor front extension. It was approved on 20th October 2005 (Ref 05/51222/HH).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 Harbourne Close
48, 50, 52, 54, 56 Ladybridge Avenue
40, 42, 44 Carlton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received eight letters in response to the planning application publicity. Issues raised are
highlighted below:












Differences between the plans approved and actual building on site
Front door is of a different design
Roof line on dormer is steeper
Rear roof is flat
Conservatory is larger
Difference between plan submitted and actual building on site
Viewing arch window is larger than illustrated
Two French doors to the rear only one indicated on plan
Proposal is not in keeping with the surrounding area
Bigger expanse of brickwork to the rear
Proposal does not accord with SPD
Ridge line is higher than adjoining property
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site Specific Policies: None
Other Policies: None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposal would seriously
injure the amenity of existing residential properties and whether the proposal would have an
unacceptable impact on the street scene.
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 the character of
streets, impact on views, scale and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES7 of the Adopted UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would
have an adverse impact upon the occupiers or users of other developments in the vicinity or an
unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Policy DES8 of the Adopted UDP states that permission to extend, or alter an existing building will
only be permitted if it respects the general scale, character and proportions of the existing building
and compliments the surrounding area.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) House Extensions was adopted on the
19th July 2006. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards
maintained when determining householder applications.
The application is for the retention of dormers in the roofspace at the front elevation of the property.
The approved middle dormer projected 0.5m beyond the building line, in a cantilever style design.
It has however been built so the dormer is in line with the ground floor elevation. The dormer also
differs from that approved because it is 0.3m higher so the ridgeline of the dormer is the same
height of the ridge of the existing dwelling. The pitch of the roof on the dormer would be shallower
than that approved. I consider that although the dormer design is different from others flat roofed
dormers in the area, the dormer is of a design, which accords with HE10 of the SPD.
The proposal introduces bay windows at ground floor level. I consider that all alterations to the
front of the property are of a good design and do not detract from the street scene. I consider that
although the dormers are different in appearance to others in the area, I do not necessarily consider
them to be unacceptable. I am therefore of the opinion that the element on the front elevation is in
accordance with DES7 and DES8 of the Adopted UDP.
The conservatory has been altered in size from that approved. The width of the conservatory is
5.9m, which is 0.7m larger than that approved. The projection of the conservatory from the rear
elevation has been reduced by 0.9m, thus would project 2.74m in accordance with HE5 of the SPD.
I am therefore satisfied that it would not have an unacceptable impact on the residents of 13
Harbourne Close. Objections were raised to the location of two French doors on the rear elevation
on the proposal. These would provide access from the dwelling into the conservatory. They would
not be situated on the external rear elevation of the building.
The application includes the retention of the first floor rear extension. The proposal would extend
the ground floor brick elevation to two-storey. Policy HE1 of the SPD states planning permission
will not normally be granted for extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 21m
between facing habitable room windows. There approximately 22.4m from the rear of 15
Harbourne to the rear of 44 Carlton Road, therefore comply the proposal would comply with HE1.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
The application differs from that approved because three first floor windows in the rear elevation
have been reduced in size and the pitch of the roof has been reduced.
The windows on the rear elevation have been altered from those approved. The three windows at
first floor level have been reduced in size. I have received objections in relation to the expanse of
brickwork to the rear of the dwelling. Although the windows and large expanse of brick work on
the rear elevation are not ideal in design terms, I do not consider them to have an unacceptable
impact on the street scene and therefore they do not warrant the refusal of this application.
The pitched roof of the first floor rear extension has been altered to that approved. In the approved
application the pitch of the roof was 8 degrees in this proposal the slope has been reduced to 4
degrees.
The applicant has submitted a letter justifying the reasons for the change in pitch of the roof. It
states that the proposed timbers to be used in construction would seriously compromise the
headroom within all the rooms along the rear elevation, thus would make them inhabitable and the
scheme not worthwhile.
Although there is a slight pitch to the roof, this is not clearly visible and it therefore has the
appearance of a flat roof. Flat roofs are not always unacceptable in terms of design and appearance.
There are other flat roof extensions in this area, many of which are dormer extensions to front and
rear of dwellings and many are situated in prominent locations and have visual impact on the street
scene. These flat roofed extension are part of the character of the area and this scheme must be
considered in the wider context. I consider that although the flat roof is not ideal in terms of design
when considered in the context of the surrounding area the proposed rear extension is not would not
out of character.
The property is located in a position where the rear of the property is visible from Charlton Road,
Parr Fold Avenue and from a public footpath which is adjacent to the application property. I
consider that although highly visible that the
CONCLUSION
The retention of dormers in front roofspace, bay windows on front elevation, conservatory on the
rear of the dwelling and first floor rear extension is not considered overbearing, dominant or to be
out of character with the area or street scene. The proposal accords with the Draft SPD on House
Extensions, DES1, DES7 and DES8 of the Adopted UDP. I consider the design of the proposed
extension to be acceptable and I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable
adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of overlooking or loss of
privacy. I am also of the opinion that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the
street scene or the character of the surrounding area.
Therefore I recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
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 development hereby approved to no.15 Harbourne Close shall be constructed in
accordance with the amended plan 123 Rear Elevation Revision B submitted to the Council on
8th June 2006.
APPLICATION No:
06/52542/FUL
APPLICANT:
Abbotsound Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
1 - 3 Fairhope Avenue Salford M6 8AR
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of office building into 14 apartments together
with associated car parking
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is currently occupied by a four-storey office building. The site is bounded by Fairhope
Avenue to the northeast, Eccles Old Road to the southeast, with two-storey residential properties on
the other two boundaries. Beyond both Fairhope Avenue and Eccles Old Road are two-storey
residential properties.
The existing four-storey building is listed Grade B on the Local List: “Important in the City Wide
architectural or local street-scene context, warranting positive efforts to ensure retention”. There
are a number of trees within the site some of which are afforded the protection of a Tree
Preservation Order.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
The application proposes the change of use of the existing office block to accommodate fourteen
apartments with a total of fifteen car parking spaces including two disabled spaces would be
accommodated within the site. There would be cycle storage to accommodate cycles within the site.
The application when submitted included the erection of a four storey apartment block to
accommodate eight apartments. This element of the application has now been omitted and this
application therefore only relates to the change of use of the existing building
SITE HISTORY
A planning application for the change of use of office building into 14 apartments, erection of a
four storey building comprising eight apartments (new build) together with associated car parking
was submitted and withdrawn in December 2005 (06/51960/FUL).
A planning permission was granted for the construction of an entrance ramp in January 1992
(E/29274)
A planning permission was granted for the continued use of offices in June 1991 (E/28308)
A planning permission was granted for the change of use from offices to a residential care home in
June 1991 (E/28309)
A planning permission was granted for the change of use from offices to fourteen self-contained
flats June 1991 (E/28310)
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no objection but recommends conditions relating to
noise and a gas membrane
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No comments received
Environment Agency – No Objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice has been displayed and press notice published.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
196 – 206, 121 – 147 (odds) Eccles Old Road
2-8 (evens), 9 and 11 Fairhope Avenue
1 – 11 (odds) Cleveland Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
Councillor Ainsworth has requested that the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel
determines the application. The following issues have been raised: -
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
Location of bin store
Number of car parking spaces
Loss of trees
Unauthorised work
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H5 – Provision of Residential Accommodation Within Existing Buildings
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 – Location of New Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; and whether the proposal complies with the
relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with each of these issues in
turn.
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).
Adopted Policy H1 states that new housing development should, inter alia, contribute to the
provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area, not lead to an oversupply of any
particular type of residential accommodation and provide a high quality residential environment.
Adopted Policy H5 requires the conversion of non-residential properties into residential properties
not to have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties or the character of
the surrounding area.
The application relates to an existing vacant building. The proposal would create twelve
two-bedroom apartments and two one-bedroom apartments in a residential area. I would therefore
consider the proposal to be in accordance with the above polices of the Adopted UDP.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
Amenity
Adopted Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
Adopted Policy H5 requires the conversion of non-residential properties into residential properties
not to have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties or the character of
the surrounding area; the development makes satisfactory provision for amenity and open space;
the development would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
The existing building would have habitable room windows on all four elevations. The elevation
facing Fairhope Avenue would overlook the car park area. The northwest elevation would
overlook the rear gardens and elevations of residential properties on Cleveland Avenue. The
distance between habitable room windows would be 19m, which is less than the normal policy of
21m. However given the local importance of the building and the desire to retain it I would
consider the distance to be acceptable and in this instance outweigh any issues of loss of privacy or
overlooking.. The southwest elevation would overlook the side and rear garden of No.196 Eccles
Old Road, there are no habitable room windows on the side elevation. The existing building is 9m
from the side boundary with No.196 Eccles New Road. I would therefore consider this to be
acceptable given the local importance of the existing building.
Amenity space would be located along Eccles Old Road.
I would not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the privacy or
outlook of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings or the future occupants of the proposal in
accordance with Adopted Policy DES 7 and H5.
Open Space
Adopted Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
The applicant has agreed to make a contribution towards the provision of open space in the area, in
accordance with the above policy. The contribution in this regard would be £21,600 based on the
number of bed spaces proposed. I am satisfied that this contribution complies with Adopted Policy
H8.
Car Parking
Adopted Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers,
cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that
the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
There would be a total of fifteen car parking spaces including two disabled spaces. There would be
cycle storage to accommodate cycles within the site. The site is close to several bus routes and
within walking distance of the tram route.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
In light of the Council’s maximum car parking standards and the need to encourage the use of more
sustainable modes of transport, the site’s relatively close proximity to public transport routes,
which is a main road with various bus routes and the tram route I consider the proposed level of
parking to be acceptable and in accordance with Adopted Policy A10. I therefore have no
objections to the application on highway grounds.
Trees
Adopted Policy EN10 states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of, or
damage to, protected trees will not be permitted. Where the loss of trees is considered acceptable,
adequate replacement provision will be required.
Now that the application only proposes the conversion of the existing building none of the trees on
the site would be felled.
Other Issues
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has no objections to the proposal but
recommends a condition relating to noise assessment. The condition has been attached.
Councillor Ainsworth indicated that there were no plan sections of the existing building indicating
ceiling heights. The applicant has submitted a plan indicating the majority of the attic ceiling
height would be 1.8m high.
Internal works have been carried out to the existing building. The Council’s Enforcement Team
has visited the site and I am satisfied the current works would not require planning permission and
that internal renovations undertaken to date would not constitute a formal change of use.
Foundations for the new build originally proposed by the applicant but since omitted have been dug
out and the applicant is aware that if planning permission is not obtained then it may have to be
backfilled. The applicant has indicated that the foundations have been dug out due to his workers
being on holiday in the near future and not able to carry out the work. The situation will be
continued to be monitored.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
There has been various communications between the Council’s Arboricultutal Consultant and the
applicant’s arboricultural consultant. The proposed four storey building has been omitted from the
application to address a street scene issue. The location of the bin store has been amended to
address the concerns of one of the neighbouring residents. -In accordance with Policy H8 of the
Adopted UDP, I have attached a condition requiring the applicant to enter into an agreement under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of a total of £21, 600.
This would contribute to the provision of open space in the vicinity.
CONCLUSION
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development to be acceptable, that the
scheme would contribute to the provision of a mix of dwelling types in the area. I am satisfied that
the amenity of neighbouring or future residents would not be unacceptably detrimentally affected
as a result of this scheme. Consequently, I am satisfied that the application accords with the
relevant policies of the Adopted UDP. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to commencement of the development; the developer shall undertake an assessment to
determine the external noise levels from the surrounding road network including Eccles Old
Road and Fairhope Avenue that the proposed residential elements will be subjected to (day
time and night time). The developer shall detail what steps have to be taken to mitigate the
disturbance from the above. The assessment shall have due regard to the Department of the
Environment Guidance PPG 24 - Planning and Noise, achieving BS8233: 1999 in all habitable
rooms. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development. Once agreed, all
identified noise control measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation and thereafter
retained.
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 6 months of the commencement of development and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
4. Prior to commencement of development a method statement detailing the laying of the
geo-textile material as indicated on the submitted plan 437/01/02/C shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The work detailed in the approved
method statement shall be implemented prior to first occupation.
5. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning
Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a
commuted sum as required by Policy H8 of the Adopted, having regard to the standards set out
in Policy R2 of the Adopted UDP and Salford's Greenspace Strategy will be paid to the Local
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes.
6. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the car parking provision
shall be laid out and completed in accordance with Drawing No. 1095/05/04/B received 18th
July 2006 prior to first occupation of the residential units
7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the location
and design of cycle storage, bin storage and recycling facilities within the site shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved cycle
and bin stores and recycling facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the approved
details and shall be made available for use prior to the first occupation of any unit and retained
thereafter.
8. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with policy
DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R009B Safeguard Existing Trees
5. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H8 and R2 of the Adopted UDP.
6. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage
7. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes and in order to encourage
waste recycling, in accordance with Policy A10 of the Adopted UDP.
8. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance
with policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The gas protection membrane should follow best practice construction industry guidance
CIRIA report 149, characteristic situation No.2. The protection should include ventilation of
confined spaces within the building, well constructed ground slab, propriety gas membrane and
minimum penetration of ground slab services.
For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
applicant / developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the
Environment Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551)
2. The responsibility to properly address contaminated land issues, including safe development,
irrespective of any action taken by this authority, lies with the owner / developer pf the site.
The applicant / developer is requested to contact the Council's Environmental Protection Unit
as soon as is practicable should contamination be encountered during development of the site.
Historical map searches have identified a former potentially contaminative use (i.e. may be a
former industrial use, an infilled feature such as a pond etc.) that may effect the development of
the site. You need to ensure that your builder and the building control officer dealing with the
developer are aware of this so that appropriate precautions can be taken to protect the
developer, the public, the environment and the future users from contamination issues.
For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Advisory, the
applicant / developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the
Environmental Directorate on 0161 793 3114 for further advice.
3. Basement drainage should be pumped to prevent flooding. Hard driveway areas should drain
to soakaway. Sewer Connections to Building Control Approval and United Utilities.
4. Please note the planning permission relates to the following plans
Drawing No.
1095/05/01A
1095/05/02
1095/05/03/A
1095/05/04/B
APPLICATION No:
06/52719/FUL
APPLICANT:
Dain Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent Worsley Road Methodist Church Harrowby
Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey building with additional level of living
accommodation in roof space to provide 14 apartments together
with associated landscaping, car parking and creation of new
vehicular access
WARD:
Swinton South
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land bounded by Worsley Road, Worsley Road Community Church,
Harrowby Street and terrace properties fronting Partington Lane. The site has two distinct road
frontages to Worsley Road and Harrowby Road.
The site is currently overgrown with a number of trees in close proximity to the Worsley Road
frontage, two of which are mature and visible from a number of points along Worsley Road.
The proposal has been amended to provide 14 apartments and 14 car parking spaces. The
apartments would be provided in one block fronting Worsley Road and would reflect the curve of
the road at this point were it starts to join Partington Lane. Vehicular access into the site would be
via a new access point from Harrowby Road.
The building would be two storey in height with a third floor of accommodation provided within
the roof space. The building would be red brick with a tiled roof.
SITE HISTORY
In 1995 planning permission was granted for the conversion of vacant premises to form three self
contained flats together with alterations to provide mansard roof incorporating new windows and
provision of new car parking spaces (95/33661/FUL).
In 1994, planning permission was granted for the demolition of vacant buildings and erection of
two storey office development with associated car parking and landscaping (96/35408/FUL)
The buildings (formerly Langdale Cottages) have been demolished.
CONSULTATIONS
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to the provision of an
adequate site investigation and noise assessment condition
Environment Agency – No objection
United Utilities – No objection
Police Architectural Liaison Unit – States “I am not happy with the main entrance inside the
“secure “area. This will allow strangers to access the cars and ground floor windows, putting them
at risk and compromising the security of the area. The deeply recessed windows to apartment 4 will
be particularly vulnerable to attack. I would prefer the main entrance taken off the street, where
visiting strangers can be seen by passers-by. This would allow the rear area to be more secure”
PUBLICITY
Two site notices was displayed on 18th May 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on Thursday 26th May 2006
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1, 2-8 even, 6A Partington Lane
9 –17 (o), 18 – 27 (con) Harrowby Road
2 Collier Street
Staff Of Life Worsley Road
Worsley Road Community Church
1st Floor 217, 217, 215 Worsley Road
202, Flat above 202, 204 – 208 (e) 212, 212A Worsley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received thirteen letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
Whilst many of the letters raise concerns regarding elements of the scheme many support the need
for development on the site. The following issues have been raised:Increase in traffic
Increase in parking problems
Loss of trees
Fly tipping
Access to the Church for maintenance
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: SD1 – The North West Metropolitan Area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development
R2 – Provision of Recreational Land and Facilities
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design Statements
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 – Location of New Development
DES10 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the design of the proposed building is acceptable; whether
there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity and whether the proposed level of
parking is acceptable. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
Principle of Development
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
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).
Adopted Policy H1 states that new housing development should, inter alia, contribute to the
provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area, not lead to an oversupply of any
particular type of residential accommodation and provide a high quality residential environment.
The proposal would provide thirteen 2 bed apartments, two 1 bed apartments and one 3 bed
apartment.
Adopted Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the
reuse and conversion of existing buildings being the preferred location of development, followed
by previously developed land with Greenfield sites last. Sites should also be well served by a
choice of means of access and are well related to housing, employment services and infrastructure.
The site has been previously developed and that whilst the site is overgrown at present I do not
consider that the site could be considered Greenfield as defined in the annex to PPG3. Therefore, I
am satisfied that the site is a brownfield site as defined by PPG3.
Therefore, this application relates to previously developed land, which is considered to be
brownfield. The proposal would create 14 apartments within a predominantly residential area.
There are a number of bus services which run past this site with a bus stop opposite on Worsley
Road and one on Partington Lane. Moreover, I consider that the site is located within easy walking
distance of a variety of amenities within Swinton Shopping Centre. I would therefore consider the
principal of the proposal to be in accordance with the above polices of the Adopted UDP.
Design, Scale and Massing
Adopted 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 DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the
proposal takes account of the need for good design. A written statement should be submitted which
explains the design concepts and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and
visual appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context and how the proposal meets the
Council’s design objectives and policies.
The proposal would provide three floor of accommodation. The third floor would be contained
within the roof space. Aspect would be via dormer windows. The ridge height of the proposal
adjacent to 2 Partington Lane would be 0.3m lower than the ridge height of 2 Partington Lane. The
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
height of the building would increase further away from this neighbour and would be 10.9m at its
highest point, 1.1m higher than the ridge of 2 Partington Lane. In comparison the ridge would be
0.2m lower than the ridge of the neighbouring church.
The Worsley Road elevation includes interesting elements which provide the exterior of the
building with vertical emphasis and recesses to provide the elevations with interest and depth. In
addition, there would be entrances to the building from Worsley Road which would add interest to
the elevations and help increase activity.
The central focal element facing Worsley Road would have a similar angle of pitched roof to that of
the neighbouring church.
The design of the proposed building is of a good quality and a design statement has been submitted
with the application that demonstrates how the development meets the design objectives and
policies of the City Council. I have attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of
materials to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development and I am
satisfied that this will ensure that they will be of a suitably high quality.
I am of the opinion the proposal would represent a high quality addition to the existing urban area
and the design is such that it would be in accordance with the requirements of the development and
character of the surrounding area.
Design and Crime
Policy DES10 and the Council’s supplementary planning document (SPD) on Design and Crime
seeks to ensure that development is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear
of crime, and support personal and property security. Crime and Disorder is a material planning
consideration.
The policies of the SPD and UDP are concerned with the design of development and spaces around
them.
The Police Architectural Liaison advisor states “I am not happy with the main entrance inside the
“secure “area. This will allow strangers to access the cars and ground floor windows, putting them
at risk and compromising the security of the area. The deeply recessed windows to apartment 4 will
be particularly vulnerable to attack. I would prefer the main entrance taken off the street, where
visiting strangers can be seen by passers-by. This would allow the rear area to be more secure”
The applicant has amended the scheme to include a landscaped area in front of the building along
the Worsley Road frontage. I have attached a condition requiring the details of the boundary
treatment to be provide prior to the commencement of development as part of a landscaping
condition. The amendment ensures that none of the apartments front directly to the footpath.
Given that the amendments have addressed the concerns raised by the Police crime reduction
advisor I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of
designing out crime.
Amenity
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
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.
Private amenity space would be provided to the rear of the building for future occupiers. I am of the
opinion that the amount and position of the proposed private amenity space is sufficient to provide
future occupiers with a sufficient level of amenity. I am also of the opinion that it would provide an
appropriate buffer between the rear aspect of the building and the car park without impacting upon
the amount of natural surveillance to the car parking area.
The footprint of the proposal appears in three distinct elements. The element adjacent to 2
Partington Lane is sited on a similar position to line through with the gable of this property. The
rear of the proposal would return away from the rear of the existing neighbour before stepping out
and returning away as the main rear elevation. I am of the opinion that this layout will ensure that
the rear elevation and garden area of this neighbour would be provided with sufficient aspect, sun
light and amenity. I consider that the proposal is in accordance with the normal principles set out in
the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for house extensions that seek to
protect residential amenity.
The existing boundary treatment to the rear of 2 Partington Lane would remain unchanged. As
such I do consider that the introduction of habitable room windows at ground floor would result in
a loss of privacy to this property. The site opposite is Stop and Steer, a car garage and accessory
shop. To the east of Stop and Steer is a collection of commercial and residential properties. This
proposal would maintain in excess of the Council’s normal separation distances to those properties
and the proposal would be set at an angle to those properties. The element of the proposal which
faces the gable of the Staff of Life public house would maintain 26m. As such I do not consider
that the proposal would result in any loss of privacy to future occupiers or existing residential
properties.
I am of the opinion the proposal would not have any unacceptable impact on nearby occupiers or
users and as such consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect
of residential amenity.
Car Parking
Adopted Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers,
cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that
the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
A total of fourteen car parking spaces including one disabled space would be provided. There
would be a cycle store to accommodate cycles within the site. The site is close to public transport
and Swinton Town Centre. The site is in a highly accessible location and I consider the provision o
100% parking to be entirely appropriate an sufficient particularly in light of the Council’s
maximum car parking standards. I do not consider therefore that the proposal would have a
detrimental impact on highway safety and I have no objections on highway grounds. I consider the
proposed level of parking to be acceptable and in accordance with Adopted Policy A10.
I have attached a condition requiring details of the cycle store to be submitted and approved prior to
the commencement of development.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
Open Space
Adopted Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
The Council’s draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) identifies the threshold for when the
requirements of H8 are applicable. Development over 10 units would be required to contribute to
formal and informal open space by this supplementary document. This proposal would provide 14
apartments. Whilst I accept that this document has some weight (albeit little at present) I consider
that the need to provide open space and amenity space for new residential development is
established by policies H8 and R2 of the adopted plan. Therefore, I consider that to satisfy the
adopted development plan there is a need for this scheme to contribute towards open space.
The applicant has agreed to make a contribution towards the provision of open space in the area, in
accordance with the above policy and guidance set out in the draft SPD. The contribution in this
regard would be £22,680 based on the number of bed spaces proposed. I am satisfied that this
contribution complies with Adopted Policy H8 and R2 of the adopted plan.
Trees
Adopted Policy EN10 states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of, or
damage to, protected trees will not be permitted. Where the loss of trees is considered acceptable,
adequate replacement provision will be required.
There are a number of trees on the site which are mainly concentrated along the Worsley Road
frontage. There are two trees which are mature and visible along Worsley Road
The Council’s consultant arborist has inspected the site to consider whether any trees on site are
worthy of protection. The result of the assessment is that neither tree merits protection, T1 has a
major structural weakness where the stem divides and T2 has an asymmetric crown shape as it is
dominated by the much larger T1, it also has much lower vitality.
The Council’s consultant arborist advises that consideration be given to replacement tree planting.
Replacement tree(s) could not be provided along the Worsley Road frontage should this application
be approved. However, I consider that the quality of design and the contribution this development
would make to this corner plot is sufficient not to warrant a replacement tree in a similar position to
those that would be lost to the development.
However, in accordance with adopted policy EN10 and policy TD 6 of the Council’s adopted
Supplementary Planning Document for Trees and Development that replacement trees should be
provided as part of this site. I consider that it would be appropriate for replacement trees to by
provided along the Harrowby Road frontage. I am satisfied that this would safeguard amenity in
the area and help soften the relationship of the car park to this elevation.
I therefore attach a condition for replacement trees to be included as part of the landscape scheme I
am of the opinion that the scheme would accord with the policies set out above with regard to trees.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
Other issues
In response to the advice set out in the response from the Director of Environmental Services I have
attached two conditions requiring a full site and noise investigation to be undertaken prior to the
commencement of development.
Future maintenance is not a material planning consideration. However, the proposal does not
building directly upon the common boundary I have also forwarded the letter from the Church
directly to the applicant which raises the question of future maintenance. I am also of the opinion
that the development on this site would provide additional security to the neighbouring elevation of
the church.
The applicant has indicated where bin stores would be located within the site. I have attached a
condition requiring details to be provided which includes recycling facilities.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with Policy H8 of the Adopted UDP, I have attached a condition requiring the
applicant to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
for the payment of a total of £22,680. This would contribute to the provision of open space in the
vicinity.
Amendments to the scheme to provide a better mix of apartments and an increase in the number of
proposed car parking spaces.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the design of the proposal is acceptable within this mixed
residential area and the scheme accords with the adopted policy framework in this instance. I
therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Standard Condition M08 Site Investigation - new
3. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, the applicant shall submit for written
approval an assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. This assessment should
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road network
including Worsley Road and the A580 East Lancashire Road, and any other local noise sources
which are deemed significant on the site. The assessment shall identify all noise attenuation
measures which may be determined appropriate to reduce the impact of noise on the residential
properties on site and achieve the requirements of BS8233 for internal noise levels.
Consideration shall also be given to achieving adequate Summer Cooling and Rapid
Ventilation. If deemed necessary, alternative ventilation measures shall be identified and
incorporated into the noise assessment report. Once agreed, all identified noise control
measures shall be implemented and thereafter retained.
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 C07C Replacement of Trees
6. 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.
7. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than fourteen car parking
spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
8. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
9. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of bin
and recycling stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such approved bin stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use
before the development is brought into use.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
3. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
6. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
7. Standard Reason R014B Parking of vehicles - each dwelling
8. Standard Reason R013B Use of parking areas
9. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. 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.
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 Environmental Services Directorate can be contacted on 0161 737 0551 for further
discussions concerning the assessment of noise and subsequent mitigation measures at this site
and for further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition,
the applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the
Environment Directorate on the same number.
4. The applicant is advised that this scheme relates to the amended plans received on 21st June
2006 which show a reduction in the number of apartments and an increase in car parking
spaces.
APPLICATION No:
06/52770/FUL
APPLICANT:
University Of Salford
LOCATION:
Peel Park Campus University Of Salford Crescent Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a part four/part five storey building comprising 379
student bedrooms (Amendment to planning permission
05/49963/FUL)
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposed building would be located within Salford University’s Peel Park Campus. The
application site is currently an unused grassed area adjacent to the students’ union, the Myers
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
Building, which houses the University’s estate’s section and Constantine and Horlock Courts,
which comprise student accommodation. To the west of the proposed building is University Road.
The proposed building would be part four storeys and part five storeys, with the highest part of the
building at corner where the main entrance is located. Due to the shape of the proposed building
and the location of Constantine Court, a courtyard area would be created which would be
landscaped with walkways providing pedestrian access to the different entrances to the proposed
building. A total of 70 car parking spaces, including three disabled spaces, would be provided as
part of this proposal. Vehicular access into the site would be from University Road. New boundary
treatment to the site along University Road would be provided as part of this proposal. The proposal
would necessitate the demolition of the Lankester Building, which is one of the University’s
administration buildings.
SITE HISTORY
In May 2005, planning permission was granted for ‘Demolition of
existing administration buildings and erection of one part four/part
five storey block comprising 348 student bedrooms together with
associated communal facilities and conference rooms’ (05/49963/FUL).
This new application sees the conference facilities on the ground
floor of the northern element being removed and replaced with
bedrooms. This is how a further 31 bedrooms have been accommodated.
There will still be a reception, finance office, general enquiries
office, other offices and interview rooms on the ground floor of the
western element for staff.
CONSULTATIONS
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no objections to the principle of the proposal,
subject to conditions requiring a noise assessment and site investigations
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – comments received. The ALO makes a number of
suggestions to improve security and safety, including security gates and a secure car park.
Greater Manchester Passenger Executive – comments received. The site
is located within close proximity of Salford Crescent Station and a
number of bus stops. Future residents of the apartments would
therefore have a choice of transport modes which would help to reduce
reliance on the private car. The GMPTE suggests seeking a contribution
from the applicant for improvements to the lighting and installation
of CCTV along University Road to improve security and safety for
future residents accessing public transport facilities.
Environment Agency – no objections
United Utilities – no objections
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – no comments to make
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 1st June 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Business House, University Of Salford, University Road, Salford
Midland Bank, University Road, Salford
Blocks 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 Horlock Court, University Road
Blocks 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 Constantine Court, University Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any objection in response to the planning application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: none
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES13 – Design Statements
DES11 – Design and Crime
H7 – Provision of Student Accommodation
A10 – Provision of Car, Motorcycle and Cycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of this proposed development, its design, level of car parking provision and whether
there would be an impact on the surrounding highway network have already been assessed in the
previous planning application (05/49963/FUL) and approval was granted due the development
being in accordance with the relevant policies. Therefore the main issue in the determination of this
application is: whether the increase in the number of student bedrooms is acceptable.
Provision of student accommodation
Policy H7 states that planning permission will be granted for the provision of student residential
accommodation provided that the following criteria are met:
there is a proven need for the development;
the development is in a location with very good access by public transport, walking and
cycling to local facilities and to the educational establishment that it is designed to
serve;
there would be no unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers of
neighbouring developments;
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
the use would not have an unacceptable impact, either in itself or cumulatively, on the
character of the area; and
the proposal is compatible with wider regeneration objectives, and is consistent with
other policies and proposals of the UDP.
The University confirmed it had 3,200 student accommodation contracts from 3,985 applications
received for the year 2004/2005, thereby demonstrating that demand for student accommodation is
greater than supply. The University’s strategic aim is to update and increase the quality and
quantity of bed stock on campus consolidating in outlying areas. The University also confirmed
that there is a need and demand from students for higher quality accommodation, particularly
en-suite accommodation. On the above basis, I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that
there is both a quantitative and a qualitative need for the proposal for more bedrooms, in
accordance with criterion i of Policy H7.
The site is located adjacent to a high frequency bus route to the east of the site which runs along the
A6 (Broad Street) and close to Salford Crescent Railway Station. The site is also close to the
facilities available at Salford Shopping City to the west and Manchester City Centre to the east,
which could be reached by bus, train or walking. Therefore, the proposal is located in a highly
accessible location, consistent with criterion ii of Policy H7.
Given that the development is sited within an existing university campus, I do not consider there
would be an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers or on the character of
the area, in accordance with Policy H7 criteria iii and iv respectively.
The proposal would be compatible with wider regeneration objectives by assisting in achieving the
provision of on-campus, high quality student accommodation, which would be sited in a more
secure, sustainable and accessible location, thereby being consistent with Policy H7 criteria ii and
v.
In light of the above, I am satisfied that the increase in the number
of student bedrooms from 348 to 379 (a further 31 rooms) is acceptable
and that the applicant has demonstrated the proposal’s compliance
with Policy H7. The 8% increase in number of bedrooms would not be
significantly different compared to the original proposal in terms
of impact on the surrounding area. The proposed building size and
siting would not change, only the internal use of it.
I therefore
have no objections to the application in this regard.
Design
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 and siting has previously been approved. The siting of the proposed building is the
same as the one already approved and there are minor changes such as the addition of some
windows and others being omitted.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
The proposed materials would still be a combination of brick and render, with concrete detailing
and curtain walling. I have attached a condition requiring samples of the materials to be submitted
and approved and I am satisfied that this will ensure they are of a suitably high quality. On the
above basis, I am of the opinion that the application accords with the above policy in relation to
design.
Car Parking
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
A total of 70 car parking spaces would be provided within the site, including three disabled spaces.
Both national and local planning policies emphasise the need to reduce reliance on the private car
and encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes. The site is located in close proximity to
public transport links and, in accordance with Policy A10, cycle parking facilities would be
provided within the site. As the proposed accommodation would be located within one of the
University’s campuses, students would be able to travel to their lectures on foot and there are a
number of other facilities, such as the library, students’ union and shops located within close
proximity of the proposed building. I am therefore of the opinion that car use would be relatively
limited and the need for car parking would therefore be reduced. The car parking would be
provided in two phases, and I have attached a condition reflecting this. On the above basis, I am of
the opinion that the proposed level of car parking provision accords with Policy A10. I therefore
have no objections to the application in this regard.
Other Issues
A condition has been attached requiring the submission of a traffic calming scheme for University
Road to be submitted and approved in order to ensure that the surrounding highway network would
not be unacceptably detrimentally affected as a result of this proposal.
As per the previous approval the applicant will be required to make
a contribution towards environmental improvements within the Chapel
Street Regeneration Strategy Area in accordance with the Development
Control Policy Note in this regard. Such a contribution would be
secured through a Section 106 Agreement. A condition has been attached
requiring this agreement to be in place prior to the commencement of
the development. In accordance with the Council’s Policy Note on S106
agreements in this area, applicants normally make a contribution of
£1,000 per apartment. However, as the application is for student
accommodation it was previously agreed that the applicant would
contribute £200 per unit, which is a fifth of what is normally
required. The applicant has requested that this contribution be used
for environmental improvements in the vicinity of the site, and
Firestation Square and Peel Park have been suggested as possible
locations for such environmental improvements.
Further to the application being submitted, where it was stated no
trees would be felled, the applicant has found it will be necessary
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
to remove some of the trees on the site. The trees are not visually
significant and a condition has been attached for a landscaping scheme
to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of development
which would include replacement tree planting.
Finally, I have received some comments from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer in respect of
this application which have forwarded to the applicant for information. These recommendations
are to install fob access to the security gates and erecting fencing to secure the car park.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution towards environmental improvements
within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area. A total contribution of £75,800 has been
agreed, taking into account the contents of the Development Control Policy Note on planning
obligations within Chapel Street and the fact that this proposal is for student accommodation.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the increase in the number of student bedrooms and the minor
changes to the building are acceptable and that the application accords with the relevant policies. I
therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for
the external elevations and roof of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials,
unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. The 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 two years of the commencement of development and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
4. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the means of vehicular
access from University Road has been constructed and laid out in accordance with the
approved plans.
5. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
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 improvement purposes.
6. The cycle and refuse storage facilities shown on the approved plans shall be provided and made
available for use prior to occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved and shall be
retained thereafter, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
7. A minimum of 25 car parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the layout shown on
the approved plans prior to occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved. The
remaining spaces shall be provided within eighteen months of the commencement of the
development, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
8. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an
identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled
waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health
and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping
schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.The
sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved
report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.Prior to discharge
of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local
Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works
undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
9. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a noise assessment shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This assessment should
follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road network and
the railway. The assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures and alternative means
of ventilation which may be determined appropriate to reduce the impact of noise on the
residential properties on site and achieve the requirements of BS8233 for internal noise levels.
Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all approved noise control
and ventilation measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any of the
apartments hereby approved and thereafter retained.
10. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a traffic calming scheme
for University Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The approved scheme shall be
implemented prior to first occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved, unless agreed
otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
5. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate environmental improvements
within the Chapel Street Area in accordance with Salford City Council Development Control
Policy Note - The Use of Planning Obligations in the Chapel Street Area
6. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes, in accordance with Policy
A10, and to safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage
8. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
9. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
10. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from Greater Manchester Police
3. The applicant is advised to contact the Traffic and Transportation Section regarding the traffic
calming scheme.
4. The applicant is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Directorate of
Environmental Services (0161 737 0551) for further discussions regarding the requirements of
the Contaminated Land Condition.
5. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the amended plans received on 31st May
2006 which shows the amendments to the elevations.
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
APPLICATION No:
06/52795/REM
APPLICANT:
Shepborough Development Co Ltd
LOCATION:
Agecroft Commerce Park Agecroft Road Pendlebury Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Details of the siting, design and external appearance of a
warehouse/distribution unit with associated two storey offices
together with associated landscaping and car parking
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is located within the Agecroft Commerce Park. The site is currently vacant.
The unit would be located to the south of the Commerce Park. To the south of the units is Bunzl and
to the west is unit 4 which is under construction, beyond this is a railway line and beyond this a
number of residential properties. To the east are a number of small units. The remainder of the
Commerce Park comprises a mixture of light industrial units and warehouse buildings. Some of the
land within the Commerce Park, to the north of the application site, is currently vacant. However,
outline planning permission has been granted for B1, B2 and B8 uses.
Consent is sought for details of the siting, design, external
appearance, means of access and landscaping for the unit. It would
be accessed from a road off the roundabout to the east which has been
constructed as part of a separate phase of the Commerce Park. The
unit would comprise a total of 4645sqm floor space. A total of 47
car parking spaces, including three spaces for disabled use, would
be provided between the proposed unit and the access road. The service
area would also be to the front of the unit and the boundary of the
site would be landscaped. The proposed unit would be a maximum of
13.2m in height.
SITE HISTORY
In January 2002, outline planning permission was granted for the
development of the part of the former Agecroft Colliery site and
Brindle Heath Sidings to form a commerce park, including light
industrial, general industrial, warehousing uses and intermodal
facility (ref: 00/41657/OUT).
In November 2003, planning permission was granted for the details of the siting, design and
external appearance of one Business (B1)/Industrial (B2)/Warehousing (B8) speculative unit (Unit
4) including means of access together with the siting of gate house (ref: 03/46854/REM).
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
In June 2005, an application to extend the period for submission of
reserved matters in respect of outline planning application
00/41657/OUT for the development of land to form a commerce park
including light industrial, general industrial, warehousing and
intermodal facility was approved (ref: 05/50437/OUT).
In September 2005, an application for details of siting, design, external appearance and means of
access for two industrial units (Units 4 & 5) together with associated landscaping was approved
(05/50919/REM).
CONSULTATIONS
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no objections.
Environment Agency – no objections but recommends condition relating to a site investigation.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objections.
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – has provided guidance regarding fencing, glazing and the
unit should be designed to the minimum standards of the Secured By Design award.
Railtrack – no comments received to date.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – no objections.
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – no comments received to date
Lancashire Wildlife Trust – no comments received to date
Bury Metropolitan Borough Council – no comments received to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 9th June 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 – 40 (E) Broomhall Road
50 – 80 (E) Broomhall Road
1, 3, 5, 112 & 114 Bank Lane
31 & 32 Dettingen Street
31 & 32 Minden Street
31 & 32 Egmont Street
Units 1, 4 & 5 Agecroft Commerce Park
2 Overman Way
Units 14 – 18 Lamplight Way
Units 11 & 12 Lamplight Way
REPRESENTATIONS
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
I have not received any letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: E4/10 – Sites for Employment Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 – Landscaping
A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the design of the proposed
buildings is acceptable; whether the proposed landscaping scheme is acceptable and whether the
proposed level of car parking is acceptable. I shall deal with each matter in turn below.
Design
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 proposed unit would be similar to the existing units within the Commerce Park,
which have already been approved. I have attached a condition requiring samples of the materials
to be submitted and agreed, which will ensure that the materials are of a sufficiently high quality
and an appropriate colour. I therefore consider that the scheme accords with the above policies.
Landscaping
Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate
appropriate hard and soft landscaping provision. Where landscaping
is required as part of a development, it must be of a high quality,
reflect and enhance the character of the area, not detract from safety
and security, form an integral part of the development, be easily
maintained and respect adjacent land uses.
The proposed landscaping scheme incorporates hedgerows and trees along the outer boundaries of
the unit. 2.4m high weld mesh fencing would be provided around the perimeter of the site, which
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
the applicant has confirmed would be green. A strip of close mown grass would be provided
between unit 3 and the access road to unit 4. To the south of the unit, between unit 3 and unit 1
would be an area of close mown grass and clipped hedgerows. Ornamental shrub planting would be
at the entrance to the unit.
The landscaping scheme has been designed by the same company, and is similar, to that of the
approved schemes for units 4 and 5. The developer of units 4 & 5 is the same developer as this
application. I am satisfied that the number of trees to be planted is appropriate and that the type,
height and colour of the fencing is acceptable. I am of the opinion that the proposed landscaping
scheme is of a high quality and would make a positive contribution to the character and appearance
of the area. I have attached a condition requiring the landscaping scheme to be implemented within
eighteen months of the commencement of the development. I am satisfied that the proposal
complies with the above policies.
Car Parking
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
A cycle storage area would be provided within the curtilage of the site which would accommodate
six bicycles, which is based on the proposed floor space and accords with Policy A10. I am
therefore satisfied that this will encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport in
accordance with local and national policies. There would be three disabled spaces provided on site
which is in line with the Council’s standards.
Amenity
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.
I have not received any objections from the Strategic Director of Environmental Services in relation
to this proposal or any objections from nearby residents or units. I am of the opinion the proposed
unit would not have any unacceptable impact on nearby occupiers or users and so the proposal
complies with DES7.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the design of the proposed building and the
landscaping scheme to be acceptable and in keeping with the remainder
of the Commerce Park. I am satisfied that there would be no
unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents and I have no objections to the means of access into the
site. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. 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. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the landscape scheme
hereby approved shall be carried out within 18 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 fencing hereby approved shall be painted green RAL6005 prior to its erection on site and
shall be retained as such thereafter.
4. The fencing hereby approved shall be erected prior to first occupation of the unit hereby
approved and shall be retained thereafter.
5. The car parking spaces and servicing area shown on drawing number 4070-002C shall be
provided and made available for use prior to occupation of the unit and shall be retained
thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. Standard Reason R012B 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
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
APPLICATION No:
06/52957/COU
APPLICANT:
H Hunter
LOCATION:
347 Moorside Road Swinton M27 9HH
PROPOSAL:
Continued use of premises as a commercial bakery
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The applicant seeks consent for the continued use of the premises as a commercial bakery. The
baking hours are 10:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 10:00 to 16:00 Saturdays and Sundays. The
delivery hours are 04:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday. The bakery has operated from the premises
since the application was submitted.
The application site is situated on the fringe of an established industrial area on the west side of
Moorside Road approximately 35 metres to the north of its junction with Invar Road. Five
residential properties sit to the north east of the site at a distance of approximately 35 metres.
SITE HISTORY
An application was approved in 1998 for the erection of a warehouse with ancillary offices
(reference: 98/37915/FUL). The application was subject to the following condition:
‘The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Sundays and Bank
Holidays and shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 8 am and 6
pm.’
The reason given for the attachment of this condition was to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring
residents.
A further application was approved in 2000 for the erection of a warehouse unit with ancillary
office accommodation together with car parking and HGV turning facility. The above condition
was attached to the permission with hours restricted from 8 am to 7 pm to safeguard the amenity of
neighbouring residents.
CONSULTATIONS
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has no objection in principle to the application
but recommends the attachment of a condition relating to fume extraction. Environmental Services
have confirmed that no noise complaints have been received in relation to the application site.
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 6th July 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
348, 349 Moorside Road
350 – 360 Moorside Road
368 – 376 (evens) Moorside Road
Megan & Co Civil Engineering Ltd, Invar Road
May Gurney, Invar Road
REPRESENTATIONS
Four letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of neighbouring properties. These
raise the following concerns:
Noise, vibration and disturbance, surrounding gates and fencing are metallic and excellent
conductors of acoustics.
The proposed change of use has already taken place.
Increased traffic congestion, traffic flow is already held up by heavy goods vehicles
manoeuvring.
Deliveries resulting in overlooking of properties.
The application has been referred to Panel at the request of Councillor Hinds due to congestion and
noise nuisance.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
DP2: Enhancing the quality of life.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: E5:
Development within Established Employment Areas.
EN17: Pollution Control.
DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are; whether the principle of
the use is acceptable and whether it is detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
Principle of development
Policy E5 of the UDP relates to development within established employment areas and considers
that planning permission will be granted for the redevelopment of land and buildings for
employment purposes.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
The application site is situated within an established industrial estate and the current permitted use
is as a warehouse with ancillary office accommodation. Given the context of the surrounding area
and with regard to policy E5, the principle of a commercial use in this location is acceptable.
However, this is dependent upon the operating hours of such a use, particularly as previous
permissions have been subject to conditions restricting the hours of operation.
Amenity
Policy DES7 of the UDP considers 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. Development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
With regard to the objectors’ concern that deliveries would result in the overlooking of properties
within Moorside Road. I don not consider that any overlooking could be described as significantly
detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of these properties. Any overlooking would be to the
‘public face’ of the properties which already have very limited privacy. Vehicles driving along
Moorside Road un-related to the proposed change of use could similarly overlook the front face of
properties along Moorside Road. Therefore, a refusal of planning permission would not be
warranted on this basis.
Policy EN17 of the UDP relates to pollution control and considers that development proposals that
would be likely to cause or contribute towards a significant increase in pollution to the air by reason
of noise, odour, artificial light or vibration, will not be permitted unless they include mitigation
measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development.
The applicant has indicated that the deliveries would be in the form of 1 HGV visiting the site per
day with the rest of the deliveries being undertaken by transit vans. This, however, is not possible
to control and furthermore if the change of use to commercial bakery production were to be
approved another bakery company could operate from the site with different patterns of vehicle
movement and frequency of vehicles.
Whilst the application site is situated within an established industrial estate it is situated on the
fringe of this industrial estate. Invar Road does provide an access into the industrial estate, but is
partly unmade, but it is not the principal access. It is not therefore particularly heavily used by
vehicles entering or leaving the estate. It is some 75 metres to the south of Nos. 368 – 376
Moorside Road. Residential properties exist on the junction of Moorside Road and Invar Road.
The vehicular access and the manoeuvring of vehicles within the application site are undertaken
within close proximity to neighbouring residential properties, principally Nos. 368 – 376 Moorside
Road. In light of this proximity and the proposed delivery hours beginning at 04:00 am, it is
considered that the proposed change of use would have an adverse impact on the amenities of
neighbouring occupiers.
CONCLUSION
The use is situated on the fringe of an industrial estate in close proximity to residential properties
and has an unacceptably detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers by reason
of noise and disturbance resulting from vehicles entering, leaving and manoeuvring within the site
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
during the early morning delivery hours. I therefore recommend that the application is refused and
that enforcement action be taken to secure the cessation of the use.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The use, by reason of noise and disturbance caused by vehicles entering, leaving and
manoeuvring within the site particularly during the early morning hours, is unacceptably
detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of adjacent properties, contrary to policies EN17 and
DES7 of the City of Salford UDP.
APPLICATION No:
06/52963/OUT
APPLICANT:
Her Majesty's Court Service And Urban Vision Partnership
Ltd
LOCATION:
John William Car Park Land Bounded By John William Street,
Vicarage Grove And Birkdale Grove Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application to include means of access in
respect of the erection of a combined court building, multi
storey car park and ancillary works
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is to the north of Eccles Town Centre. The site is bounded by John William
Street to the south, Birkdale Grove to the east and Vicarage Grove to the north. The site is presently
used as a public pay-and-display car park that accommodates 179 spaces which is owned freehold
and operated by Salford City Council.
The proposal seeks to relocate the existing Magistrates Court at Bexley Square and the County
Court at Eccles New Road to one new building to provide a purpose built facility that can deal with
offenders in a more efficient manner. This outline application therefore seeks consent for the use of
the site as a combined court building. There would be eight Magistrates Courts and four County
Courts together with ancillary offices. The proposed five storey court building would occupy half
of the site and the other half would be occupied by a five storey multi-storey car park (MSCP)
which would provide provision for court staff and members of the public.
This application is for means of access only. The design, siting, external appearance and
landscaping would be the subject of a separate application. The applicant’s agent has provided
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
additional indicative information as to the siting and layout of the court and MSCP, what the
buildings could look like, the scale of the buildings in their surroundings and the access points to
the site.
SITE HISTORY
In November 1995, planning permission was granted for the
‘Improvement of the existing car park to a secure car park, including
erection of fencing and installation of security cameras,
rationalisation of access point, improvements to rear access of Land
Securities precinct’ (95/34483/DEEM3).
CONSULTATIONS
United Utilities – no objections
Environment Agency – no objections
Highways Agency – have requested further information and that the application is not approved
until the Agency has provided its final response. It is important to note that the Agency has not
issued an Article 14 Direction preventing the approval of the application.
Police Architectural Liaison Unit – no comments received
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 19th June 2006.
A press notice was published on 6th July 2006.
Please see the attached list for who was notified.
REPRESENTATIONS
A Statement of Community Engagement has been submitted with the
application. This details the community engagement strategy and the
meetings, presentations and exhibitions HMCS undertook to ensure
local politicians, residents and businesses were aware of the
proposal and its issues and were given the opportunity to provide
feedback. This all occurred prior to the submission of the planning
application.
I have received three letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
Increase in traffic – vehicle and pedestrian
Noise and dust generated during construction
Fear as a result of criminals in the area
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 - Design and Crime
EN14 - Pollution Control
A1 - Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A8 - Impact of the Development on the Highway Network
A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
ST11 – Location of New Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether adequate car parking provision would be provided, whether the
proposal would have any unacceptable impact on the highway network and whether the provision
of the displaced car parking is acceptable. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn:
Principle of Development
Policy ST11 requires development to be on the most sustainable sites on previously developed land
in locations that are well served by a choice of means of transport and well related to services and
infrastructure.
The proposal is within Eccles Town Centre and is a brownfield site. I am of the opinion a civic
building would contribute to a mix of uses within the established town centre. The site is in a
sustainable location given its proximity to the shopping precinct, train station, tram station and
Transport Interchange for buses. I therefore consider the principle of a court building to be
acceptable.
Traffic
Policy A1 states that developments likely to give rise to significant transport implications will not
be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport assessment and, where appropriate, a
travel plan.
Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would:
Have an unacceptable impact on highway safety by virtue of traffic generation, access,
parking or servicing arrangements
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
Have an unacceptable impact on the ability of the Strategic Route Network to
accommodate appropriate traffic flows; or
Cause an unacceptable restriction to the movement of high, wide, long or heavy vehicles
along Abnormal Load Routes
The access into the proposed MSCP would be from Vicarage Grove in approximately the same
position as the current exit from the John William Street car park. The exit for the MSCP would be
to the north onto Vicarage Grove. Access for service and custody vehicles would be from the south
along John William Street and the main pedestrian access would be from the southeast corner of the
site. It is intended that a pedestrian priority zone with high quality paving and street furniture
would link the court to Church Street and therefore the town centre.
In accordance with policy A1 the applicant’s agent has provided a transport assessment. The
statement has considered existing and new traffic counts to establish existing flows at the assessed
junctions, turning movements and junction capacity.
The assessment has considered the existing traffic conditions of the John William Street/Albert
Street priority junction, the Albert Road/Wellington Road/Albert Street signal junction, the Church
Street/Peel Street/Corporation Road signal junction and the Wellington Road/A576 Gilda Brook
Road signal junction. The report concludes that the impact of the development on the junctions
(and links) in terms of traffic volume would be 5% or less and would therefore not have a
significant impact on these junctions. (The guidelines of the Institute of Highways and
Transportation (IHT) recommend existing highway junctions only require detailed analysis [i.e.
highway capacity assessments] if the traffic generated by the development impacts on background
traffic volumes greater than 5% in congested locations). The Highways Agency has requested
further information before providing a full response. However this information relates to matters
that I do not consider fall within the Agency’s statutory remit. The only junction of concern to the
Highways Agency should be the Wellington Road/A576 Gilda Brook Road junction which is the
nearest one to the M602 motorway. As concluded in the Transport Assessment submitted, the
impact of the proposed development on this junction is less than 1% which is significantly less than
the threshold set for impact assessments. I therefore consider that the proposal would not have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the highway network and consider that the application can be
approved without further comments from the Highways Agency as no Article 14 Direction has
been issued.
The Council’s highway consultant has studied the submitted transport statement and the data
contained within. He is of the opinion that the traffic generated by the proposal would only have an
impact on the Wellington Road/Albert Street/Albert Road junction and has recommended highway
works to improve the capacity and operation of this junction. I have attached a condition relating to
these highway works requiring signals and traffic calming measures.
Car parking
Policy A10 states that adequate provision for disabled drivers should be made available and the
maximum car parking standards shall not be exceeded. No car parking standards for this type of
development are present within the Adopted UDP however.
In considering an appropriate level of car parking, consideration must be given to the existing
staffing arrangements at Bexley Square to inform the assessment of this proposal. Presently at the
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
Bexley Square court on a typical day there are 80 staff including magistrates, judges, social workers
and security. Approximately 88 spaces are available within four locations. Six spaces are available
for members of the public.
The proposal does not seek consent for any of the detailed matters including car parking. The
supporting information does however indicate that 308 car parking spaces, would be provided, of
which 107 would be for the court staff and visitors (76 spaces would be designated for essential
court users only). The remaining 201 spaces would be for use by the public and include disabled
parking, cycle and motorcycle parking at ground floor level.
Eccles train station, tram station and a Transport Interchange (buses) are all within 400m of the site.
This site is therefore accessible by public transport. Therefore, I consider that the provision of 308
spaces to be acceptable. I have also attached a condition requiring the applicant to provide a Green
Travel Plan, in order to promote the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with
Policy A1 and PPG 13.
During the construction of the court and MSCP alternative car parking provision will need to be
made available for use by the public. I have attached a condition for details of this short- term
provision to be submitted and approved in writing prior to commencement of development. It is
anticipated the half of the existing pay and display car park would remain open whilst the MSCP
was built and then this would be operational whilst the court was under construction. Others spaces
may also need to be made available in other car parks in the town centre however. The MSCP may
be the subject of a separate full planning application rather than as part of the court reserved matters
application and will be owned and managed by the Council. I have not attached a condition
requiring details of the management of the MSCP and its charging regime, opening hours or
security as this would be details for the Council to determine.
Environmental Considerations
Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute towards
a significant increase in existing air pollution (including dust), water or soil, noise, odour, artificial
light or vibration levels will not normally be permitted unless they include mitigation measures
commensurate with the scale and impact of the development. Particular regard will be had to the
proximity of a number of uses including housing, schools, hospitals, areas of open space, the
landscape and water supply.
There are no sensitive land uses in the immediate area and the Environment Agency and United
Utilities have no objection in principle to the proposal. Therefore, subject to the attached
conditions, I am satisfied that the proposal would accord with Policy EN17 in respect of pollution
control.
Crime and the Fear of Crime
Policy DES10 and the Council’s supplementary planning document (SPD) on Design and Crime
seeks to ensure that development is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear
of crime, and support personal and property security. Crime and Disorder is a material planning
consideration.
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
The policies of the SPD and UDP are concerned with the design of development and spaces around
them. Consideration of any reserved matters application would have to respect and incorporate the
policies highlighted above.
One of the letters of objection in response to the application publicity raised concerns about the
increased fear of crime arising from the location of the Courts in Eccles.
The agent for HMCS has explained in the supporting statement that any offenders arriving by
custody vehicle would be taken straight into the court via the secure custody only access located
between the court and multi-storey car park. The majority of attendees would be for minor offences
such as road traffic offences and would therefore not be considered dangerous or compromise the
safety of the public. It also states ‘court buildings have an excellent record of safety and security in
and around their locations’. The presence of CCTV, security staff , police officers, natural
surveillance and the use of Secure by Design principles would combine to provide a safer
environment.
Given that there is no evidence to demonstrate a direct correlation between the provision and siting
of a court building to higher levels of crime, I am not satisfied that there is evidence that
demonstrates that the proposal would lead to a detrimental increase in crime within the locality.
The detail of the scheme would be the subject of a separate reserved matters application in which
careful consideration of design and crime would be undertaken.
Impact on adjacent occupiers
Policy DES7 states that new development should not have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers
of neighbouring properties.
The proposal is in outline only. There are no residential properties in the immediate vicinity, only
offices, shops and car parks. I am of the opinion the principal of a court building on this site is
acceptable and would not impact upon the neighbouring properties.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the proposal to be acceptable and in accordance with the relevant policies
of the Adopted UDP. I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the
surrounding area.
I therefore recommend approval subject to the following conditions:
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition B01B New reserved matters
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
- 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.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development a site investigation report shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the
nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall
include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and
controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions
on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and
landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and
property. The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start
of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site. Prior to
discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to
the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all
works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
4. Prior to the commencement of development an air quality assessment shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall also identify any
mitigating measures necessary to achieve the Air Quality Objectives. The approved measures
shall be incorporated into the development prior to first use.
5. No development shall commence unless and until full details of the improvements and
enhancements to John William Street have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be completed within 12 months of first
occupation.
6. No development shall commence unless and until a scheme providing details for the provision
of alternative public car parking to replace existing public car parking spaces within and
adjacent to the site during the construction period has been submitted to and approved by the
Local Planning Authority.
7. No development shall commence until a travel plan for the court building has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The travel plan shall include the
objectives and targets, and where appropriate measures to promote and facilitate public
transport use, measures to reduce car use and its management, measures to promote and
facilitate cycling and walking, promotion of practices/facilities to reduce the need to travel,
monitoring and review mechanisms, travel plan coordination, and provision of travel
information and marketing. The initiatives contained within the approved plan shall be
implemented and shall be in place prior to the first use of the development.
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
8. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the highway works to the junction of
Wellington Road/Albert Street/Albert Road and the traffic calming measures to St. Marys
Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These
works shall be constructed in accordance with the approved scheme prior to any part of the
development first becoming operational, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. To ensure that adequate pollution control measure are incorporated into the scheme in
accordance with policy EN14 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
6. To ensure that satisfactory car parking provision is made in accordance with policy A10 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. In order to ensure that the site is accessed in a sustainable manner in accordance with Policy
A1 of the City of Salford's Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance Note 13.
8. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
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).
2. This development is subject to the applicant entering into an agreement under Section 278 of
the Highways Act 1980 for the highway works at the junction of Wellington Road/Albert
Street/Albert Road or any traffic calming measures.
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
APPLICATION No:
06/52596/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Fiddlers Lane Primary School
LOCATION:
Fiddlers Lane Primary School Fiddlers Lane Irlam M44 6QE
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high mesh boundary fencing and gates
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site comprises Fiddlers Lane County Primary School which is situated on the
eastern side of Fiddlers Lane, Irlam
The area is predominantly residential in character with the exception of a small block of shops
situated on the western side of Fiddlers Lane facing towards the school. The proposal is for the
erection of a 2.4m high mesh boundary fence and gates along all boundaries of the school. This
includes a small section of fencing along part of the frontage to the approved Childrens Centre and
school extension which is currently being built on land to the north of the existing school buildings.
SITE HISTORY
05/51550/DEEM3 - Conversion of part of school into a childrens centre together with associated
car parking area and erection of 2 single storey extensions to school and a covered play area Permitted
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 16th May 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flat 1-32 St Clements Court
Flat 1-30 Holly Court
2a, 4,9,11,13-23,25,27, 31,35-41Fiddlers Lane
3-29 Marlborough Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objection in response to the application publicity. The following issues
have been raised:
the fence is appropriate for the side and rear boundaries of the school
the fence on the Fiddlers Lane frontage will look like a prison fence and should be set back
from the back edge of the pavement
loss of property value (this is not a material planning consideration).
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
ADOPTED UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES10 Crime and Design
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the visual impact of the fencing and gates
on the amenities of the area particularly when viewed from nearby residential properties and the
need to ensure the school has a reasonable level of security.
The fencing and gates are required to reduce vandalism and unauthorised access. The southern and
western boundaries of the site are currently bounded by a low metal rail fence (approximately 1.5m
high) which affords no demonstrable level of security for the school. The type of fencing that is
proposed is a fine gauge mesh and has been used at other schools in the area and the City with
success. With a fine gauge mesh the fence when viewed particularly from a distance is "see
through" in addition to being a very good security barrier.
Three letters of objection have been received stating that the fence should be set back from the back
edge of pavement. The majority of the fence will be set back from the back edge of the pavement
where it fronts the school on Fiddlers Lane. The fence will only be located adjacent to the back
edge of the pavement for a short distance (some 2m) where it fronts the new Children’s Centre and
School extension, which is currently being built.
The issue of the position of the fence immediately back of pavement where it would front the
approved Children’s Centre has been considered. If it were to be set back in line with the majority
of the fence in front of the school then this would set it behind existing trees and shrubs. This gives
concerns about future maintenance, as this would leave the landscaped area within the line of the
highway land. There is also a concern about security. The majority of the existing 1.8m fence will
remain for the time being, until the Children’s Centre is further advanced and the applicant may
wish to apply to replace their fence. This application includes only a short length of new fencing of
approximately 2m in length in order to prevent people being able to use the shorter fence to step up
over the new security fence into the school grounds. If this length is not included or is set back
behind the existing fence, then it would result in a weakness in the security at this point.
It is considered that the type of fence being proposed here provides a good compromise between the
need to improve security at the school and the need to safeguard the visual amenity of the area and
the living conditions of facing and neighbouring residents. Subject to the imposition of a condition
requiring the fence to be coloured green it is considered that the development would be acceptable
in terms of local amenity and would comply with DES10 of the adopted UDP.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development to be acceptable and that the
type and height of fence being proposed here would not have an unduly significant impact on the
visual amenity of the area. Consequently I am satisfied that the application accords with the
relevant policies
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The fencing 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
Note(s) for Applicant
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 3rd August 2006
77