PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
APPLICATION No:
06/52639/HH
APPLICANT:
Parkfield Properties LTD
LOCATION:
96 Rocky Lane Eccles M30 9LY
PROPOSAL:
Erection of detached garage in rear garden
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property on Rocky Lane in Eccles.
The proposal is for the erection of detached garage with playroom and dormer window
constructed in roofspace in rear garden.
The proposed garage would be 7m in length, 5.5m in width and 6.8m high. The garage would
have a pitched roof and which would have a small dormer in the roof space on the north
elevation. The dormer would extend from the brick elevation by 4.6m to 1.2m from the
ridgeline and would be 3.4m wide. This dormer would have a pitched roof ad would be a
window to the playroom.
SITE HISTORY
There are two previous planning applications on this site
Demolition of existing garden store, erection of a two-storey rear extension, a rear
conservatory and detached garage at the rear of dwelling. This application was approved on
the 7th September 2005 (Reference 05/51049/HH)
Demolition of existing garden store and existing outrigger and erection of two storey rear
extension including area of raised decking. This application was approved on the 7 th April
2005 (Reference 05/50156/HH)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
94, 98, 121, 123, 125 Rocky Lane
26, 38 Egerton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 6 letters in response to the planning application publicity. Issues raised are
highlighted below:
Outlook for neighbouring residents
The garage used for other purposes
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
Impact on sunshine and daylight
The size of the garage
The disruption caused by the development
The building is an eyesore
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site Specific Policies: None
Other Policies: None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
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
complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted UDP and Supplementary Planning
Document.
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 is in consultation
period and should be given substantial weight when determining planning applications. It
provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards maintained when
determining householder applications.
This application is for the erection of detached garage in the rear garden of a detached
property on Rocky Lane in Eccles. The proposal would be 7m in length, 5.5m in width and
6.8m high. The garage would have a pitched roof and which would have a small dormer in the
roof space on the north elevation. The dormer would extend from the brick elevation by 4.6m
to 1.2m from the ridgeline and would be 3.4m wide. This dormer would have a pitched roof
and would be a window to the playroom.
HE3 states that planning permission will normally not be granted for a two-storey gable
extension that does not maintain 13m from facing habitable room windows. There are
habitable room windows in the rear elevation of 26 Egerton Road which are 17m from the
gable of the proposed garage. I consider that the proposal is a suitable distance from the
habitable windows not to have an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of these residents.
The proposed garage is situated close to the boundary with 94 Rocky Lane. The majority of
the garage would be adjacent to land at 94 Rocky Lane, which the neighbouring residents use
to park their cars. Also there is a difference in ground levels, 94 Rocky Lane is 1m higher
than the application site. The applicant has submitted a sun shadow survey in support of the
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
application, which demonstrates that due to the proposals orientation there would not be an
unacceptable overbearing impact or loss of sunlight to the neighbouring gardens. I therefore
consider that this proposal would be in accordance with DES7 of the Adopted UDP.
There is a habitable room window in the rear elevation of 94 Rocky Lane. This would
maintain between 12m and 14m from this window. I consider that this is acceptable, as the
garage does not directly face this window. I am of the opinion that the garage would not have
an unacceptable impact on light or outlook from this window therefore would not have an
unacceptable impact on residential amenity that these residents currently enjoy.
HE2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that introduce
windows close to gardens of neighbouring dwellings. There is a dormer window in the
proposal at first floor level. This window would not be to a habitable room. The window
would maintain 11.5m from the boundary with 98 Rocky Lane. I therefore consider that
introducing this window would not have an unacceptable impact on the privacy enjoyed by
the residents at 98 Rocky Lane.
HE1 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for the erection of a garage
with an up and over door unless a hardstanding of 5.5m in length and at least 2.4m in width. I
consider that this proposal would have adequate hardstanding for at least one car of the
highway and comply with this policy of the SPD.
I have received objections as to the use of the proposed garage. I consider that the uses
involved in the proposal are ancillary to the use of the existing property, therefore would have
no potential to have an adverse impact upon residential amenity of neighbours.
I have also received objections as to the size of the existing property and the need for another
large addition. Large extensions to residential properties can be acceptable provided they do
not have an unacceptable impact on the street scene or residential amenity and meet other
policies. I am satisfied that this extension would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact
on amenity and therefore have no objections to this proposal based on its size.
CONCLUSION
The proposed detached garage with playroom in roof space is not considered overbearing,
dominant or to be out of character with the area or street scene. The proposal accords with the
SPD on House Extensions and DES7 and DES8 of the Adopted UDP. I consider the design of
the proposed extension to be acceptable and I am also 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.
Therefore I recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the
same type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
(reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building
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
APPLICATION No:
06/52781/FUL
APPLICANT:
Dairmiles Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
37 - 39 Cavendish Road Salford M7 4WP
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing properties and erection of a part
two/three/four storey building with undercroft car parking
to provide eight apartments
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to 37 and 39 Cavendish Road, Salford 7. It is proposed to demolish
the existing buildings and erect a part two/three/ four storey building comprising eight
apartments. The properties are vacant at present. Number 37 was last used as a nursery, prior
to which it was a dwelling. The existing building is predominantly two storey. There is
however a single storey garage to the east, adjacent to the boundary with No. 39. Number 39
is a two storey detached vacant dwelling. The site is located in a predominantly residential
area. To the north of the application site is a large piece of land which previously
accommodated a tennis court. The land is covered by an area TPO and there are protected
trees to the front of the site and within it. There would be under croft car parking with one
space per apartment and an area of hardstanding to the front of the development for any
visitors.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
SITE HISTORY
In May 2005, planning permission was refused for the demolition of existing building
(number 37) and erection of a three/four storey building comprising six apartments together
with associated landscaping, car parking and alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian
accesses (05/50397/FUL). There were four reasons for refusal:
The proposed development would, by virtue of its height and location, have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents,
namely those of 39 Cavendish Road due to its overbearing nature on the first
floor side/rear conservatory. The application is therefore contrary to Policy
DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
The applicant has not submitted sufficient economic evidence to justify that the
existing property cannot be retained and converted economically for an
acceptable alternative use. The application is therefore contrary to Policy DEV10
of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
The proposed development would result in the substantial pruning of tree T1 and
felling of T3 (as shown on drawing no. 5416.20) that is protected by the City of
Salford Tree Preservation Order No 4 and No.295, respectively. This would have
an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the area, contrary to
Policy EN7 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy
EN10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP.
The proposed development would, by virtue of its height, massing and location,
have an unacceptably detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents, namely those of 35 Cavendish Road due to its overbearing and
dominant nature. The application is therefore contrary DES7 of the Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
In February 2005, planning permission was refused for the demolition of existing building
(number 37) and erection of a part three/four storey building comprising six apartments
together with associated landscaping and car parking (04/48546/FUL). There were four
reasons for refusal:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
The proposed development would result in the substantial pruning of trees T1 and
T3 (as shown on drawing no. 5416.10) which are protected by the City of Salford
Tree Preservation Order No 4 and the City of Salford Tree Preservation Order
No 295 respectively. This would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the
amenity of the area, contrary to Policy EN7 of the Adopted City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan and Policy EN10 of the Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement UDP.
The proposed development would, by virtue of its height and location, have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents,
namely those of 35 Cavendish Road due to its overbearing nature on the second
floor habitable room window. The application is therefore contrary to Policy
DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
Insufficient information has been submitted to enable the acceptability of the
design of the front elevation of the proposed building to be fully assessed.
The applicant has not submitted any economic justification to demonstrate that
the existing property cannot be retained and converted economically for an
acceptable alternative use. The application is therefore contrary to Policy DEV10
of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
In 1995, planning permission was refused for the change of use from a domestic dwelling to
use for education purposes (94/33341/COU). The reason was due to ‘The proposed
development would be out of character in this area of predominantly single family houses and
would injure the amenity of neighbouring residents because of the traffic congestion and
disturbance that would result from the use’.
In 1989, an outline application for residential development on land to the rear of 37
Cavendish Road was withdrawn (ref: E/24959).
In 1986, planning permission for the conversion of the existing swimming pool to a children’s
nursery/play centre was approved (ref: E/19961).
In 1983, planning permission for the change of use from a dwelling house to a residential
home for the elderly was refused (ref: E/15594). The reason was ‘The proposed use of the
dwelling house as a residential home for the elderly would be out of character in this area of
predominantly single family houses in particular because of its close proximity to the
adjacent dwelling and inadequate parking provision’.
In 1974, planning permission for the erection of 15 no. 1 bed flats, 12 no. 2 bed flats and 1 no.
penthouse, including garages and car parking facilities, on land at 37 Cavendish Road was
refused (ref: E/300). The reasons were:
i)
The development of this land in the manner proposed would be inappropriate and
detrimental to the character and amenities of the good quality residential area.
ii)
In the interests of public and highway safety, in particular because of the narrow
and inadequate access on to Cavendish Road.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no objections
Environment Agency – no comments received
Broughton Park Residents’ Association – no comments received
Consultant Arborist - advised to retain tree 3881 and remove the others as indicated on the
plan. The landscaping scheme shall also include suitable semi-mature trees to replace the
ones removed and the appropriate tree protection measures shall be used during construction.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 1 June 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
18 to 36 Cavendish Road
23 to 49 Cavendish Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received six letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. Two
of the letters are from two properties, therefore eight households have objected. The
following issues have been raised:
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
Increase in traffic congestion
Car parking problems
Out of character with the area
Impact on house prices in the area
Loss of light
Out of scale with the other properties on the road
Impact on trees
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
ST11 - Location of New Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be: whether the principle
of the proposal is acceptable; whether the design of the proposed building is acceptable;
whether the proposed building would have a detrimental impact on the trees within and
adjoining the site and whether this would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the
area; whether there would be a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents;
and whether the application accords with the policies of the UDP.
Principle of the Proposal
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.
Policy ST11 seeks to locate new development in the most sustainable sites that are well
related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure. This development would see the
re-use of brownfield land, which complies with 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).
The site is less than 500m from Bury New Road which is served by a number of bus routes,
and Bury New Road runs from Prestwich in Bury to Manchester City Centre. Employment
and services are therefore accessible to future residents of the development.
PPG3 also advises that development densities should be between 30 and 50 dwellings per
hectare, and paragraph 58 of PPG3 reiterates Policy H1 by saying there should be a “greater
intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility such as city, town,
district and local centres or around major transport nodes along good public transport
corridors”. Draft PPS3 provides more recent, albeit only draft, guidance on suitable densities.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
Annex C of Draft PPS3 suggests a density of development of between 35 and 55 dwellings
per hectare, given the suburban location of the site concerned. The density of this application
is 40 dwellings per hectare, which therefore accords with the above policies.
The proposal would create eight three-bedroom apartments in a residential area of houses and
flats. The majority of properties in the vicinity are houses and I do not consider that this
application would result in an oversupply of the number of flats in the area. I would therefore
consider the proposal to be in accordance with the above polices and the Adopted UDP.
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.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 Housing is also relevant. It states that ‘new housing
development of whatever scale should not be viewed in isolation. Considerations of design
and layout must be informed by the wider context, having regard not just to any immediate
neighbouring buildings but the townscape and landscape of the wider locality. It also states
that local planning authorities should reject poor design’.
Planning Policy Statement 1 Delivering Sustainable Development states that ‘local planning
authorities should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they
should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to
conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or
reinforce local distinctiveness particularly where this is supported by clear plan policies or
supplementary planning documents on design’.
The surrounding area does contain a number of different styles of buildings. The wider area
is characterised by a mix of both residential and non-residential buildings and I am satisfied
that there is no particular style or form of building that is required in this particular location.
The proposal has been amended from that originally submitted following a meeting with the
case officer, the applicant’s architect and the Council’s architect. This was to ensure the
contemporary interpretation of 1930s art deco inter-wars style the applicant was aiming for
‘works’ and is of a high standard with facings and finishes which are appropriate for the
‘look’. The original development was to be constructed with a buff brick with concrete
edgings and curved glazing. The facing brickwork would now be in a soft red brick with
feature banding, external cornice and detailing to the vehicular and pedestrian entrances.
The glazed facade provides a visual break between the two elements of the proposed building;
this together with the red brick and flat roofs combine to give a massing less intrusive than the
existing situation as well the previous proposals for an apartment building in a Victorian style.
The building is set back a minimum of 14m from the highway and given the height of the new
building will be less than the existing situation with 37 and 39, I consider that the proposed
building would sit happily in the street scene and I am of the opinion that the proposed
building would not have an adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the area. It is well
designed and incorporates materials of the highest quality thereby ensuring that the proposed
building makes a positive contribution to the character of the area.
On the above basis, I am of the opinion that the application accords with policy DES1,
regional policy DP3 and central government advice as contained in PPS1 and PPG3.
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
Trees
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.
Policy TD6 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on Trees and Development
says in the case of replacement tree planting the Council will require wherever practicable,
the replacement on the basis of at least two news trees for each tree lost.
There are trees covered by Tree Preservation No.4 to the front of the site and to the rear. The
applicant has submitted a tree survey that has been checked by the Council’s consultant
arborist and a site visit undertaken. The Council’s arborist confirmed the loss of the six trees
that are to be removed (as per drawing 5416.10) would not have any effect upon the local
amenity as they are in a poor condition with the exception of 3881, which is a sycamore in a
good condition. The applicant has agreed to the retention of 3881 and to the replacement of
the TPO trees that will be felled. I have attached a landscape condition which includes the
requirement for replacement tree planting.
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 proposed building makes use of the existing site levels by providing a split-level solution
resulting in three storeys at the front and four levels at the rear. (The ground floor at the rear
would be lower than at the front). The western part of the building which replaces number 37
would be set back 6m further from Cavendish Road than number 37 due to there being a
habitable room window in the side elevation of number 35. This will therefore ensure there is
no overlooking, loss of light or privacy to the occupiers. The two storey part of the building
to the east of the site is located in the same position, albeit at a different alignment, as the
existing property number 39. There should therefore be no significant impact on the
occupiers of number 41. There are no residential properties directly to the rear and there
would be more than 35m between the new building and the properties on the opposite side of
Cavendish Road.
As the car parking would be under croft this leaves residents with a large area of private
amenity space to enjoy with views of the wooded area to the rear of the site. There are also
patio areas and the apartments would have balconies.
I am therefore of the opinion there would not be an unacceptable detrimental impact on the
amenity of the neighbouring residents and the future occupiers in accordance with policy
DES7.
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.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
There would be one space per apartment in the secure under croft car park to the rear of the
building which totals eight spaces. There would also be an area of hardstanding to the front
of the development for any visitors. There is space in the under croft car park for cycle
parking. Cavendish Road is a relatively busy road and is used not only by residents but other
drivers due to a school, church and youth club being located on this road. I would not
consider the introduction of eight apartments to significantly increase the amount of traffic or
parking on the street to an unacceptable level that 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 Policy A10.
CONCLUSION
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 existing or future residents would not be unacceptably
detrimentally affected as a result of this scheme. Consequently, I am satisfied that the
application accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted UDP. 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 all the
materials for the external elevations and the 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.
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, (there shall be 4-6
semi-mature trees planted to replace the ones removed as per drawing 5416.10) walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the
commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of
the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting
shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
4. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R010B Protect TPO trees
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The responsibility to properly address contaminated land issues, including safe
development, irrespective of any action taken by this authority, lies with the
owner/developer of the site. The applicant/developer is requested to contact the Council's
Public Protection Unit on 0161 737 0551 as soon as is practicable should contamination
be encountered during development of the site.
2. This planning permission relates to the amended plans received 20 July 2006.
3. As per drawing 5416.10 tree 3881 shall be retained.
APPLICATION No:
06/52239/REM
APPLICANT:
Carmen Associates
LOCATION:
Site
Of
Formers
Builders
Grove/Haysbrook Avenue Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Details of the siting, design and external appearance of 10three storey town houses, 12- two storey dwellings and one
three storey building comprising nine apartments together
with associated landscaping, car parking and construction
of new vehicular access
WARD:
Little Hulton
Yard
Brakesmere
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
The application was deferred to investigate the legal position on a) whether outline consent
implied that access must be taken from a public highway ie Brakesmere Grove, b) whether the
existing right of access to Seddons (builders) could be considered to form an access to the site
under outline consent, and c) whether Council owned land could be incorporated into reserved
matters application.
The legal advice in response to the above is as following:
a) & b) The outline consent implies only that access is to be a reserved matter and that details
of the exact nature of that access will be supplied at the time of the reserved matters
application. It is not possible to construe the outline consent in such a way as to infer from
where the access should be taken. The red line relating to the outline consent indicates that in
the applicant’s mind, access is to be taken directly from Brakesmere Grove. For another
access route to be considered, it would have to be expressly indicated within the red line.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
c) It is not possible for the purposes of the reserved matters application to expand the outline
consent to include land outside the red line. The red line should include all land necessary to
carry out the proposed development including land required for access to the site from a
public highway, visibility splays etc. A fresh application would be required covering the
Council owned land if this were to be considered for a means of access. As the applicant only
has a right of way over this land, they would not be able to dedicate the land as public
highway once development completed unless they were the free holder.
The Council’s Property Development Department was asked to look into whether it would be
possible to sell its land to the north of the application site to the applicant for it to be used for
access into the site. The Council is currently undergoing a stock transfer of Housing owned
property and this may mean it would not be possible to agree to sell any assets until that has
been completed, and negotiations over price cannot be entered into until a formal decision
from the Housing Committee has been reached.
In conclusion, it is not possible to consider an access into the site that is not within the red line
boundary of the outline consent. Even if it were possible, moving the access from
Brakesmere Grove to Haysbrook Avenue would move the concerns raised by residents of
Brakesmere Grove to the residents of Haysbrook Avenue.
A revised site layout plan has been received to show the widening of Brakesmere Grove by
almost 2m through the removal of 0.5m of the amenity space for the proposed apartments,
and the removal of the landscaping strip. This would add almost 2m to the overall
carriageway width to improve the free flow of traffic.
I remain of the opinion the application should be recommended for approval.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At a meeting of the Panel held on 20th June 2006 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR THE CASE OFFICER TO OBTAIN LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING
ACCESS TO THE SITE.
At a meeting of the Panel held on 15th June 2006 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of a former builders yard at Haysbrook Avenue/Brakesmere
Grove close to the Little Hulton district centre. The site is bounded by residential property to
the east and west, to the north is an office building beyond which is Haysbrook Avenue and
the district centre. To the south is open land within the grounds of Woodlands Hospital. The
access to the site would be from Brakesmere Grove. The proposal comprises a mix of
apartments, town houses, detached and semi-detached properties.
Apartments There would be a three storey apartment block fronting onto Brakesmere Grove which would
have nine two bedroom apartments with car parking at the rear.
Town houses -
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
There would be ten three storey town houses located along the southern part of the site, all
with three bedrooms and an integral garage on the ground floor. Each house would also have
a driveway and a rear garden.
Corner houses Three two storey houses would be located in the south west corner. The central dwelling
would have three bedrooms and on either side there would be two bedrooms. All would have
a car park space at he front of the properties and a rear garden.
Semi-detached properties There would be four pairs of semi-detached properties with three bedrooms, a driveway and a
rear garden. Three pairs would be located to the west of the site and the other pair would be
located centrally within the site.
Detached properties –
There would be two detached properties which would each have three bedrooms and
driveway and a rear garden.
SITE HISTORY
Outline planning permission for the principle of residential development has been granted
four times over the last 10 years:
1996 - 96/35560/OUT
1999 - 99/40108/OUT
2003 - 02/45282/OUT
2006 - 05/51946/OUT
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – a condition for a contaminated land
investigation report has been recommended.
United Utilities – have no objections providing the site is drained on a separate system with
only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. A pair of public sewers cross the site and
United Utilities would not permit building over them however the sewers could be diverted.
Environment Agency – no objections.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – comments and advice has been
provided on the lighting, landscaping, bin stores and the private amenity spaces.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 24th March 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Court Welfare Service, Haysbrook Avenue
2 to 6 Brakesmere Grove
30 to 48A Hulton District Centre
15 to 31 Armitage Avenue
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
1 and 3 Haysbrook Avenue
21 Haysbrook Avenue
‘Wicheves’ Haysbrook Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection, one with signatures from eight households and the
other with signatures from four households in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:
Increase in traffic
Headlights shining into windows of existing properties
Disruption during construction period
Access should be from Haysbrook Avenue
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: none
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES13 – Design Statements
ST11 - Location of New Development
H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of residential development has been established through the previous outline
planning applications. The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the
proposed density and mix of dwellings is acceptable whether the design of the proposed
dwellings is acceptable; whether there would be an impact on the amenity of residents as a
result of the proposal; whether the proposed level of car parking is acceptable; and whether
the proposed development complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted and Draft
Replacement UDP. I shall deal with each in turn below.
Density and Dwelling Mix
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.
National Policy contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing highlights the
need to develop previously developed brownfield sites. It also states that where appropriate
higher densities should be considered.
The density of the proposed development would be approximately 61 dwellings per hectare.
The proposal includes a variety of dwelling types and sizes including two bedroom
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
apartments and two and three bedroom houses for families. I am satisfied that this is an
appropriate mix and accords with policies H1.
The development site is within walking distance of Little Hulton District Centre, and food
supermarkets on Armitage Avenue. The site is accessible by public transport with bus stops
being located on Manchester Road and on Armitage Avenue. As such, I consider the density
to be acceptable and the proposal to accord with the thrust of the policies highlighted above.
Design
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.
A design statement has been submitted with the application that demonstrates how the
development meets the design objectives and policies of the City Council. The existing
properties in the immediate area are a mix of semi-detached houses and terraced properties.
This scheme provides a mix of dwelling types to increase housing choice, which includes
apartments at the entrance to the site. The layout is such to allow accessibility and ease of
movement whilst maintaining separation distances and providing car parking provision and
sufficient private amenity space for future occupiers. The design of the front elevation of the
apartments has been amended to include additional detailing and mock entrance features
(entrance at the rear from car park) to improve the appearance of the entrance to the
development and also provide a more interesting outlook for the residents of Brakesmere
Grove.
I have attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted
and approved prior to the commencement of development to ensure that they accord with
those of surrounding buildings and that they are of a suitable high quality.
Amenity of Users and Neighbours
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing
buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy 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.
The neighbouring residential properties are located to the east and west of the site. The layout
of the proposed development ensures that the Council’s minimum separation distances are
maintained. I am of the opinion that these distances are sufficient to ensure that the proposed
buildings would not be overbearing, reduce the amount of light existing residents currently
receive or result in neighbouring residents being overlooked. Consequently neighbouring
residents would not experience an unacceptable reduction in the residential amenity they
currently enjoy should the proposed development be implemented. This also ensures future
occupiers will also have privacy and not be overlooked by existing properties. Each town
house, semi-detached dwelling and detached dwelling has a rear garden and the apartments
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
have amenity space for future residents. I therefore consider the proposal accords with the
above policies.
Car Parking
Policy A10 states that the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
The access cannot be directly from Haysbrook Avenue as this is not within the red line
boundary of the outline application. A total of 32 car parking spaces would be provided
within the site and ten of the properties would have integral garages. Given the total number
of units proposed (32), the proposed level of car parking is acceptable, particularly given the
site’s proximity to Armitage Avenue and Manchester Road and a number of bus services. The
proposed provision is in accordance with the maximum car parking standards advocated by
the government in PPG13 and in the Draft UDP. I have no highway objections and do not
consider there would be an unacceptable increase in traffic. I therefore have no objections to
the application in this regard.
Open Space
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant is aware that a contribution towards the
provision and maintenance of an equipped children’s playground and associated open space in
the vicinity is required. The total contribution in this regard would be £73,837. I have
attached a condition requiring such a contribution. I am therefore satisfied that the application
therefore accords with Policy H8.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that this proposal incorporates a mix of dwelling types and sizes,
with good design. I do not consider that there would be an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of existing residents. The application accords with the relevant policies of Adopted
UDP. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
It is recommended 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 to secure the future maintenance of the play area.
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 all 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.
2. Prior to the commencement of development a site investigation report (the Report) shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination
and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to
receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing
primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also
address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on
nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider
environmental receptors including ecological systems and property. The investigation
shall where appropriate include a risk assessment and an options appraisal including the
remedial strategy.
The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site
investigation survey.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including
its risk assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the
remedial strategy.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report
shall validate that all works were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local
Planning Authority.
3. The landscaping scheme hereby approved shall be implemented within 12 months of the
commencement of development unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
4. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the
undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4)(a-d) of the Town and
Country Planning Act, 1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act, 1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning
Authority, and the Local Planning Authority has given its approval in writing. The
planning obligation will provide that a commuted sum as required by Policy H8 of the
City of Salford UDP and the Draft Salford Greenspace Strategy 2006 will be paid to the
Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes and for local
environmental improvements or such purposes as agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development
accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
in
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation
space for future occupiers in accordance with policy H8 of the City of Salford Unitary
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
2. The contractor who demolishes the building shall contact Salford City Council's Building
Control Unit to discuss demolition prior to work commencing.
3. The existing warehouse on the site has corrugated roof covering which is likely to be
asbestos, removal of which is controlled under the Licensing Regulations and as such any
work to remove these must be carried out by a contractor licensed by the Health & Safety
Executive.
4. This planning permission relates to amended plans received on 23rd May 2006 (floor
plans and elevations) and in relation to the general site layout drawing no.6728 P-05 C
received 4th 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
At the meeting of the panel held on the 11th August 2006 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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.
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.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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
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
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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
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.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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 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
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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 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
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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 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
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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.
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
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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 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.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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 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
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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, 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.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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.
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
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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. 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.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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 precommencement 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.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the
materials for the external elevations and roof of the building shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out
using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of 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
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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.
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.
(reasons)
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
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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
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 D
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
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
0795(02)00 Rev C
0795(02)01 Rev D
0795(02)02 Rev D
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
At the meeting of the panel held on the 11th August 2006 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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 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 nonoriginal 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.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage – no objections
Victorian Society – no comments received to date
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
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th 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 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
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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 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
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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 nonoriginal 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.
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
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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 precommencement 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.
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
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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.
(reasons)
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 should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their
proposal. Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before
undertaking any operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including
coal mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works.
Property specific summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and
underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal
Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762
6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the following plans:
0795(00)00 Rev B
0795(00)01 Rev C
0795(00)02 Rev C
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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 D
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
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
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
APPLICATION No:
06/53042/FUL
APPLICANT:
W Smart
LOCATION:
Land At Side Of 14 Vauban Drive Salford M6 8ET
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a detached bungalow
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the side garden of the semi detached dwelling house No.14 Vauban
Drive in Salford. Vauban Drive is a cul de sac and the application site is located on the
northern side of the Drive at the end of the cul de sac. Adjoining properties are all residential
and two storey.
The application proposal is for the erection of a detached bungalow in the side garden of
No.14 Vauban Drive. Access to the site would be from Vauban Drive via a shared driveway
with No. 14. A detached garage in the garden of No.14 would be demolished to accommodate
a new driveway to the proposed bungalow. There are a number of trees and mature shrubs
along the boundaries of the site. The applicant has stated that no trees will be felled as a result
of this proposal.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
30,32,34,36,38 Victoria Road
9,10,11,12,16 Vauban Drive
11,16, Acacia Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
the proposal is for financial gain at the expense of loss of the environment
insufficient car parking
access will be dangerous
loss of wildlife
loss of green area
proposal will set a precedent
proposal does not include a tree report and a tree will be affected by the creation of a
new driveway.
will add to problems of drainage in the area.
construction work will cause disturbance.
Councillor Deas has requested that the application be considered by Panel due to the concerns
of local residents.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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
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 it is considered that the proposed bungalow would contribute to the
mix of dwelling types in the area. The development would see the re-use of brownfield land
as defined 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) and to secure the more efficient use of land.
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 bungalow would be sited within the side garden of 14 Vauban Drive. The site is adjoined
on all sides by existing residential properties. The bungalow would be sited 8m a way from
the side wall of the applicant's property No.14 Vauban Drive. The bungalow would be
constructed in brick with a pitched roof. All accommodation would be at ground floor level
only with no accommodation proposed in the roof space. Habitable room windows are
proposed on the front and rear elevation of the bungalow. The distance to properties at the
rear of the site in Victoria Road is 26m to the main rear wall and 21m to the rear outrigger.
There would be 7.6m distance between the rear wall of the bungalow and the rear boundary of
the site adjoining the rear of properties in Victoria Road. I am of the opinion that the proposal
would not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the occupants of the properties in
Victoria Road.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
Residential property to the north of the site, No16 Acacia Drive the side garden of which will
adjoin the side garden of the proposed bungalow is over 25m a way and would not be affected
by this proposal. The distance between the front elevation of the bungalow and the boundary
of the site with 12 Vauban Drive would be 6.5m. There are no habitable room windows on
the side elevation of 12 Vauban Drive facing towards the proposed bungalow, and the
boundary between the two properties is screened by mature shrubbery and a 1.5m high fence.
I am therefore satisfied that the proposal will not have any significant adverse impact on the
amenity of the occupants of this property. In order to protect the amenity of adjoining
residents from any potential future extensions to the bungalow I recommend that a condition
removing permitted development rights for extensions and alterations is imposed.
The proposal includes sufficient private amenity space to the rear and parking within the
curtilage of the site 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
The proposed bungalow would be sited on land forming part of the side garden of No.14
Vauban Drive. Access to the bungalow would be via a shared driveway with No.14 Vauban
Drive. A detached garage would be demolished to accommodate the new driveway. Adjacent
to the garage and the side boundary of the site is a mature oak tree. The applicant has stated
that no trees will be felled as a result of this proposal. However, no details have been
submitted to indicate how this tree will be protected when the garage is demolished and the
new driveway is constructed. It is therefore recommended that a condition is imposed
requiring that a method statement is submitted to show how this tree will be protected when
these works are carried out. The proposal includes curtilage parking and private amenity
space for the future occupants. I have attached a condition requiring samples of materials to
be submitted for approval. Due to the location of the application site at the end of the cul de
sac the proposed bungalow would only be visible when viewed from the head of the cul de
sac and I therefore consider the proposal will not have any adverse impact on the character of
the area or the street scene. I therefore consider the proposal complies with policy DES1.
Car Parking
Policy A10 states that the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded. The
proposed bungalow and the existing property No.14 Vauban Drive would have a driveway for
at least one car to be parked clear of the highway. The proposed bungalow would utilise the
existing access which is used by the occupiers of No.14 Vauban Drive. I do not consider that
the use of this access by one additional dwelling will have any impact on highway safety in
the area. I therefore have no highway safety objections.
Other Issues
An objector has raised the issue of drainage problems in the area. However, this is not a
planning consideration, and is a private matter. The objector has also stated that if this
proposal is allowed it will set a precedent for similar developments in other large gardens in
the area. Each application has to be determined on its individual merits and has to be assessed
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
against current adopted planning policies for the area and Government Guidance as set out in
Planning Policy Guidance and Statements. The objector has also raised the issue of
construction noise from the development. It is not normal practice to impose planning
conditions to control construction noise on such a small development and there are other
controls available under the Environmental Protection Act to control nuisance caused by
noise. I do not therefore consider that the above concerns warrant the refusal of the
application.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the siting of the proposed bungalow to be acceptable and that it
would not have any unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of 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
3. No development shall commence unless and until a arboricultural method statement
specifying how the drive will be constructed in the vicinity of the oak tree has been
submitted and approved in writing by the Locsal Planning Autority. The development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2 of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (and any subsequent amending
order), there shall be no development within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby
approved as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the above Order without the prior grant of
planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials
for 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.
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. In order to safeguard the amenity of the residents, in accordance with Policy DES7 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
APPLICATION No:
06/52416/OUT
APPLICANT:
Dain Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Land To East Of Boat Yard Off Worsley Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing buildings and outline planning
application for the development of land for residential
purposes to include siting, design and external appearance
of 75 dwellings (67 houses and 8 apartments - maximum 3
storeys) and means of access from The Moorings (61 units)
and Boatyard Lane (14 units)
WARD:
Worsley
At a meeting of the Panel held on 15 June 2006 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
Since the site visit the applicant has made further amendments to the application. My
report has been amended accordingly and these amendments are in bold print.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the former boatyard in Worsley. The site covers an area
of 1.93 hectares and is irregular in shape. It is bounded to the north by the rear of the listed
terraced cottages that front Worsley Road; to the east by the rear of houses on Drywood
Avenue; to the south by the Bridgwater Canal and to the west by the existing functioning
boatyard/dry dock and by land to the rear of the houses that front the Green some of which are
also listed. The application is submitted in outline but approval is sought for all matters
except for landscaping. The site is currently largely vacant but contains several small, old,
low grade, two and single storey, brick, wooden or prefabricated industrial buildings, stores
and garages on the northern third of the site. These existing buildings are in a poor state of
repair. Until recently the lower portion of the site closer to the canal contained a number of
steel containers and was used for the storage of scrap metal. This part of the site is now
cleared though.
The Worsley Village Conservation Area borders the site on the western and northern
boundaries. The site includes Old Boat Yard Lane that is currently the only access to the site.
This narrow road also provides access to the existing working boatyard that lies to the west of
the site. The site is generally level but has a sharp drop of approximately 2m from Drywood
Avenue and a more gentle fall from the north of the site to the canal.
The scale of buildings around the site varies from the small two storey listed cottages fronting
Worsley Road to larger properties fronting the Green to the modern large detached houses on
Drywood Avenue. On the western boundary within the existing functioning dry dock there
stands a large modern two-storey building and to the south, beyond the canal are recently built
three storey apartment buildings.
There is no dominant style of building in the vicinity of the site with existing buildings
ranging from three storey apartments to small two storey terraced cottages.
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
The site contains a number of mature trees along the eastern boundary with Drywood Avenue
that are protected by preservation order. In addition there are many trees that lie just outside
the site but within the Conservation Area. The majority of the vegetation within the site has
been cleared recently but a number of trees remain that have been incorporated within the
scheme. These have been protected by a new provisional tree preservation order.
It is proposed to demolish all buildings on the site and erect a total of 75 dwellings on the site.
Vehicular access to fourteen of these dwellings would be from Old Boat Yard Lane with the
main access to the site coming from The Moorings via Drywood Avenue. The site provides
predominantly family accommodation.
The mix of dwellings is as follows:8 apartments
67 houses
A more detailed breakdown is as follows:8 two-bed apartments
34 three-bed houses
27 four-bed houses
6 five-bed houses
On entering the site from Old Boat Yard Lane there is a terrace of six smaller dwellings and
then as this access road penetrates deeper into the site a row of four larger properties leads on
to a row of four three-storey townhouses and then the only apartment block on the site
which accommodates eight apartments and faces the canal. As the vehicular route turns
to the left towards the existing dry dock it also provides access to eight further houses.
The main access from The Moorings is flanked by pairs of semi-detached properties and the
access road splits to the south, to provide access to four dwellings that front the canal and
then becomes the fully pedestrianised canalside walkway. To the north the main access
leads into a ‘home zone’ cul-de-sac. This main access road continues into the site and
leads to a parking court overlooked directly by properties that provides the parking to
those houses and the apartments that front the canal. All buildings vary in height between
two and three storeys. A pedestrianised extension to Old Boat Yard Lane provides a clear
pedestrian access through the site to the canal side walkway. Houses with front doors as
well as apartment blocks would front onto the canalside walkway. Some interface distances
fall below the City Council’s normal standards but do accord with the design principals of
‘home zones’ and the advice of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.
I consider that the internal layout of the scheme is well designed and appropriate.
The design of the buildings has been altered from the contemporary approach on the
earlier scheme to a far more traditional design with all buildings now having pitched
roofs and materials that match the local vernacular are used so that this development is
compatible with its surroundings. The use of brickwork and render reflects materials found
within the conservation area.
Parking would be provided in a variety of ways; on drives, in integral garages within the
curtilage and in parking courts.
The site lies within a five minute walk of the facilities within the centre of Worsley village.
Regular bus services stop in either direction on Worsley Road within 100m of the site
entrance. There are also frequent bus services on Barton Road that are within a few minutes
walk of the site.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
The application has been amended significantly since it was first submitted. These
amendments have been driven by officer concerns and more recently by concerns of the
local community and comments made by members at the previous Panel meeting. These
amendments have resulted in the number of dwellings being reduced from 132 to 100 and
now from 100 down to 75, maximum storey heights reducing from four to three storeys, far
fewer apartments and more houses so that apartments now comprise just over 10% of the
total number of dwellings on the site, more family accommodation and greater separation
distances to dwellings surrounding the site.
In addition the applicant undertook community consultation on the application through a well
attended exhibition of the proposals at Worsley Courthouse that resulted in improvements to
the scheme before it was submitted to the City Council. In addition to this there have been
pre-application discussions that resulted in improvements to the scheme prior to the
community consultation.
The application is accompanied by a number of documents:Supporting Planning Statement
Design Statement
Transport Assessment
Statement of Community Consultation
Noise Assessment
Arboricultural Assessment
Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Request
SITE HISTORY
There is no planning application history that is relevant to this application but the site has
been allocated for residential development for more than 20 years in successive plan
documents.
CONSULTATIONS
Worsley Village Community Association – (The following comments relate to the
scheme for 132 dwellings) The development is far too dense. If this site is used for housing,
the number of properties should be much reduced. Worsley village is in danger of becoming
overcrowded, its resources and amenities sorely stretched. We feel the area would benefit
from more family housing and smaller properties for residents who wish to downsize without
moving from the area and this should be paramount when deciding what is eventually built on
the site.
The design is far more suitable for a holiday resort or Salford Quays. We do not expect all
new developments to be black and white timbered houses – though these are extremely
popular in the area. Whatever is built on this land will impose itself on the Crescent and The
Green that contains listed buildings and any new development should bear this in mind. The
style shown on the plans appears to be a formula that could be used in any part of the country
and it should not be beyond the skill of an architect to design properties that would make their
own statement but blend with the already established properties. The building of any
apartment will impinge on the privacy of any house that backs onto this development.
Public transport in this area is totally inadequate to support a level of parking of just one
space per dwelling. Most families have at least two cars. Children shouldn’t play on streets
and a playground should be provided.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
The Old Boat Yard lane junction with Worsley Road has extremely poor sight lines making
this a very hazardous corner. The bulk of the traffic from this site will enter and exit via the
Moorings and Drywood Avenue. The burden of traffic would make the lives of residents of
the Moorings and Drywood Avenue untenable.
Any construction phase would cause severe problems throughout the whole area not just
Worsley village.
When the Unitary Development Plan went out to consultation it stated that the inspector did
not feel that this land was needed for housing. Bearing this in mind, the consultation
document has since been accepted by the City Council so why are we looking at building
residential properties on this land.
Whilst we accept that something must be done with this unattractive piece of land it should be
taken out of commercial use and used for a much smaller development of mixed family
homes and hopefully a village hall could be built into the plan.
The planning application should be refused in its submitted form.
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – A search of historic maps reveals that the
site has a history of coal and coke working along with railway and canal side working. This
indicates the need for a full contaminated land and gas survey. The applicant has submitted a
noise report that identifies that the ambient noise level is high in this area. No further
assessment of noise is necessary.
United Utilities – No objections following discussions with the applicant.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle to the proposed development but requests
that conditions be attached regarding drainage. The issue of bats has also been raised and I
have therefore requested a bat survey from the applicant. The results of this will be reported
to the Panel.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Unit – Has concerns about the lack of
defensible space around the apartment blocks with all elevations of the buildings being
publicly accessible. Access to the development from the canal towpath should be prevented
by preferably 2.4m high railings.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – No comments to make on this
application.
Manchester Ship Canal Company – Has no objections to the proposed development
subject to proper safeguards on the integrity of the canal wall.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified of both the submitted and both sets of
amended plans:
11 to 41 The Crescent, Worsley Road
Flats 1 and 2, 3 and 4 The Wharfside, Worsley Boatyard
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
9 to 33 Northbank House, Waterside House and 2 to 24 Chandlers Row
12 Greenside, Worsley Road
1 to 5 The Gatehouse and 2 to 24 Stablefold
The Queen Victoria Boat House, The Boathouse and 140 to 157 The Green
20 to 26 Worsley Road
1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 The Moorings
1, 2 and 4 Sefton Drive
33 to 43 Riding Fold Lane
8 to 15 The Lime Kilns
1 to 21 Drywood Avenue
Flat 1 The Dock House, The Green
Worsley Dry Docks, The Boatyard
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 61 letters of objection in response to the planning application
publicity on both the submitted and amended schemes. I have received eleven objections to
date regarding the latest amendments. Objections have principally been to the amount of
development, traffic problems and the height and design of the dwellings. Some residents
have pointed out that they do not object to the development in principle. Residents who have
responded to the first set of amended plans are reiterating their previous concerns. Residents
who have responded to the latest amended plans are also reiterating previous concerns
regarding the density of the development and the traffic implications of the number of
dwellings being served from The Moorings as well as objecting to the increase in the
number dwellings that are served from Boat Yard Lane. One resident states that at
least 50% of the dwellings should be served from Boat Yard Lane. One letter is on behalf
of all 27 occupiers of Chandlers Row. The following issues have been raised:The density is too high/overdevelopment.
Apartments are not in character with the area.
Too much traffic on the surrounding roads already.
Loss of light/sunlight.
As compensation for the noise and disturbance during the construction phase the
ginnel to the rear of the cottages at The Crescent should be made up
Overlooking and loss of privacy.
Four-storey development is unacceptable.
Damage caused during construction phase should be made good by the developers.
There is no objection to residential development in principle.
Local facilities such as schools and facilities for young people are inadequate to cope
with such an increase in population.
The development will overshadow listed buildings and the conservation area.
Too many houses are served from Boat Yard Lane.
Limitations should be put on traffic movements during the construction phase.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY.
DP3 - Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES3 Design of Public Space, ST11 Location of
New Development, H1 Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
Associated with New Housing Development, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES6 –
Waterside Development, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES10 Design and Crime, EN22
Resource Conservation, 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
development is acceptable, whether the amount of development is appropriate, whether the
scale, massing and design of the buildings is of sufficiently high quality in this sensitive
location, whether there is significant detrimental impact on neighbours, whether there is
sufficient parking and open space provision and whether the development has any impact on
the adjacent conservation area and listed buildings.
Principle of the Development
Policy H1 requires that an adequate supply of housing be brought forward with higher
densities being required at accessible locations such as this site. Policy H1 also requires
development to contribute toward a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms
of size, type, tenure and affordability.
Policy ST11 seeks to ensure that new development is located on the most sustainable sites
within the City and that less sustainable sites are only brought forward when necessary. The
policy is based on the sequential approaches to development that are set out in national policy
guidance and policy DP1 of Regional Planning Guidance for the North-West.
The site was allocated for residential development in the old UDP. Policy H9/35 stated that
the uses on the site were unsightly and detracted from the surrounding area. It stated that
housing development would considerably enhance the local environment but that the housing
development would need to be of exceptionally high quality reflecting the character of the
conservation area and exploiting the potential of a canalside setting.
It is important to note the written observations of the Inspector who undertook the public
inquiry into objections to the replacement UDP. The site had been allocated in the draft
replacement plan. The Inspector deleted the site from the housing allocation and made a
number of important observations.
He considered that the site was too small to warrant its own community facilities
He considered that the proposed density in the allocation of 45 dwellings per hectare
was acceptable in the context of the national drive to make the best use of land.
He noted that the site had been allocated for housing for more than 20 years but had
never come forward for development. He did not consider that the site would come
forward for development within the lifetime of the Plan and that it should therefore,
for that reason alone, be deleted as a housing allocation.
He did not consider it as a priority site so far as urban regeneration objectives were
concerned.
The site is previously developed land in an accessible location close to a range of local
facilities. The site is surrounded by residential development and is currently in industrial use
albeit at a level that causes few problems to neighbours. The site had been allocated for
residential development for more than 20 years and the inspector on the UDP public inquiry
only took the site out of its residential allocation because he had no evidence that the site
would be brought forward for development within the plan period. The principle of the
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
residential redevelopment of the site is therefore acceptable and in accordance with national
government guidance. The application proposes a mix of dwelling types and sizes that is in
accordance with policies H1 and ST11.
The Quantity/Density of Development
Detached and semi-detached homes currently account for 63% of Worsley’s housing stock.
The applicant has stated, in support of his application, that local estate agents consider that
demand for two bedroom apartments in the area is particularly high.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on housing calls on local planning authorities to make the
best use of land. It states that the inefficient use of land should be avoided and that policies
that place unduly restrictive ceilings on the amount of housing that can be accommodated on
a site, irrespective of its location and the type of housing envisaged or the types of households
likely to occupy the housing should be avoided.
It goes on to state that local planning authorities should encourage development between 30
and 50 dwellings per hectare and should seek greater intensity of development at places with
good public transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres or around
major nodes along good quality public transport corridors.
This development is now at a density of 39 dwellings per hectare. There is a good public
transport service along Worsley Road supplemented by good public transport on Barton Road
that is within easy walking distance of the site. The draft Planning Policy Statement 3 on
housing calls for a density on suburban sites such as this of between 35 and 55 dwellings per
hectare. I do not consider that the density proposed here is inappropriate and following the
latest amendments the density is now close to the minimum density to be required on
any site.
Design, Scale and Massing
Policy DES1 states that developments will be required to respond to their physical context,
respect the positive character of the local area and contribute towards local identity and
distinctiveness via a number of factors that include the scale and size of the building, its
contribution in the street scene and the quality of the proposed materials.
Policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public
space, that public space must be designed to:
i) Have a clear role and purpose, responding to established or proposed local economic,
social, cultural and environmental needs;
ii) Reflect and enhance the character and identity of the area;
iii) Form an integral part of, and provide an appropriate setting for, surrounding
developments;
iv) Be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit;
v) Be of an appropriate scale;
vi) Connect to established pedestrian routes and other public spaces; and
vii) Minimise, and make provision for, maintenance requirements.
Policy DES6 states that all new development adjacent to the Bridgewater Canal will be
required to facilitate pedestrian access to, along and where across the waterway by the
provision of; a safe and attractive waterside walkway, accessible to all and at all times of the
day; pedestrian links between the waterside walkway and other key pedestrian routes; and
where appropriate ground floor uses that generate pedestrian activity, and larger waterside
spaces to act as focal points for public activity. It also states that all built development along
the waterway will be required to; face onto the water and incorporate entrances onto the
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
waterfront; be of the highest standard of design, creating a positive addition to the waterside
environment and providing an attractive elevation to it; be of a scale sufficient to frame the
edge of the waterside; and enhance views from, of, across and along the waterway and
provide visual links to the waterside from surrounding areas.
The scheme has been designed in close collaboration with the local community and the
architects of the scheme have sought to achieve a high quality of design that does not seek to
mimic its surrounding but seeks to respect the qualities of the adjacent conservation area
through a simple palette of materials and a traditional treatment appropriate to its setting.
The provision of the new public spaces on the site between the apartment buildings and on the
canal frontage are features of the scheme. The spaces are designed well with the canal side
walkway being overlooked by habitable room windows and front doors and link the site and
the canal side walkway directly through to the Green and the heart of Worsley village. The
new public spaces form an integral part of the scheme and are of an appropriate scale. I
consider that the development fully accords with policies DES3 and DES6.
The scale and massing of the development has been reduced so that there are no four-storey
elements at all in the scheme. A mix of two, two and a half and three storey buildings are
now proposed with the closest buildings to the Conservation Area and those most visible from
it being two storey to match the row of cottages on the Crescent.
For the above reasons I do not share the view that the design, scale or massing of the
buildings is unacceptable or that apartments are inappropriate in design terms.
Impact on adjacent Conservation Area
Policy CH2 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would
have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.
The Worsley Village Conservation Area wraps around this development on its northern and
western boundaries and this development does not lie within the Conservation Area at all.
The proposed development would be set back from the Conservation Area boundary by at
least 6m and the closest building would be two-storey only although other buildings are three
storeys in part. Existing trees within the conservation area lie within the curtilage of
neighbouring gardens and are not affected by this development and are therefore retained and
will soften the impact of the new development. Now that the maximum number of storeys
has been reduced to three I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have a
detrimental impact on views into or from the Conservation Area. I consider that the removal
of the old industrial buildings on the site and their replacement with well designed residential
properties will enhance the adjacent Worsley Village Conservation Area.
For the above reasons I do not share the view that the development will overshadow listed
buildings and the Conservation Area.
Effects of the development on neighbours
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 received a number of objections from neighbouring residents regarding the impact of
the proposed development on their amenity, and in particular that there would be overlooking,
loss of sunlight and loss of privacy. At the nearest point, the proposed dwellings are at least
8m from the common boundary with neighbouring private rear gardens. Trees within the
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
conservation area provide some additional screening and habitable window to window
distances are in excess of 21m.
I do not therefore consider that there will be any significant loss of privacy, loss of sunlight or
an unacceptable outlook suffered by residents surrounding the site. I do not consider that the
height of the buildings are such that they would prove overdominant when viewed from any
neighbouring property given the distances and circumstances described above. I therefore
have no objections to the application in respect of residential amenity.
Highways, Parking and Public Transport
Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks maximum parking standards for all
developments. Within the emerging planning framework and in line with central government
advice there is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.
The traffic impact assessment submitted by the applicant shows that the proposed
development would not have a material impact on the local highway network. This
assessment was undertaken at the proposed level of 132 dwellings. Capacity assessments
at the proposed site access junction with Drywood Avenue and Worsley Road show that this
junction would operate within capacity with minimal delays. As part of the application the
applicant does propose to improve the visibility at this junction by building out the kerb
on each side of the junction by 0.5m and providing some white line hatching on Worsley
Road.
I have received objections to the level of parking proposed that there is insufficient parking
provided for the proposed development. The parking levels are in accordance with policy in
this accessible location and I consider the parking levels proposed to be acceptable and would
consider a greater level of provision over 150% to be contrary to both good practice,
government advice and planning policy. In terms of highway safety I have no objections to
the submitted scheme.
I have received objections to the increase in the number of dwellings served from Old
Boat Yard Lane. The amended plan increases the number served from this unadopted
road from 11 to 14. I do not consider that this increase is unacceptable. Users of this
road are required to drive slowly and the caution that is enforced by the narrowness of
the road and the poor visibility ensures that drivers are cautious. I have attached a
condition though to require a scheme for traffic calming of this road that will ensure
that the caution necessary is adhered to.
Sustainable Construction
Policy EN22 of the deposit draft UDP explains planning permission will not be granted if the
development will have an unacceptable impact on the conservation of non-renewable
resources.
The applicant has stated the following with regard to sustainable construction:the development is on a brownfield site
all units are fully accessible to all
durable materials are proposed
low energy lighting will be used throughout
occupants will be provided with information regarding reducing energy requirements
all units will have acoustic party walls to minimise sound transmission
natural surveillance is promoted throughout
Open Space Provision
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
The development provides some public amenity space to the south of the site adjacent to the
canal side walkway. In accordance with policy H8 of the UDP and the draft Supplementary
Planning Document on Housing open space and children’s play space can be accommodated
off site through a financial contribution. This application proposes 331 bed spaces, which
equates to a commuted sum value of £178,740.
Crime
I consider that the concerns of the architectural liaison unit cannot be fully successfully
addressed while at the same time meeting the desire of the City Council for good pedestrian
links through the scheme from Worsley village to the canalside walkway. I consider that the
concerns of the liaison unit must be balanced against the benefits that such a development will
bring and I am satisfied that the majority of the justifiable concerns of the police architectural
liaison unit can be met through a condition requiring a scheme to be submitted that is capable
of meeting their secure by design standards.
Other Objections Raised by Neighbours
i) That there is an oversupply of flats in the area and that the scheme amounts to
overdevelopment.
This is a location close to the heart of Worsley village where higher dwelling
densities should be encouraged and where it is right to provide a broad mix of
dwelling types and sizes. The level of apartments has now been brought down so
that they form just over 10% of the total number of dwellings on the site.
ii) Loss of light/sunlight
I am satisfied that the proposed buildings are sited and designed such that there will
be no significant loss of light or direct sunlight to any neighbouring property.
iii) That the development is contrary to policy
Planning policy should properly be examined as a whole and I am satisfied that the
development is supported by national, regional and local planning policy.
iv) Compensation as a result of the development phase
I do not consider that I can impose on the applicants a requirement as requested by
neighbours.
v) Local facilities cannot cope
The site has been allocated for many years and I do not share the view that there
would be a significant detrimental effect on the local community as a result of this
development.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the policy H8, the applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution
towards equipped children’s play space and public open space. A total of £178,740 would be
contributed in this regard. The applicant has also confirmed the use of sustainable building
techniques.
CONCLUSION
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
I am satisfied that the amended design is of the necessary high quality required and that the
application would not have any significant detrimental effect upon the amenity of
neighbouring residents or on the surrounding area in general. I consider that the amount and
type of development proposed is now, as a result of the amended scheme, now appropriate
and acceptable on this site. Through the development of this existing industrial site I am
satisfied that the proposed development would not only enhance the character and appearance
of the adjacent conservation area but enhance the surrounding area in general. I am also
satisfied that the level of on site parking is acceptable. I am satisfied that the application
complies with policies of the development plan as a whole.
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:
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external elevations
- 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. Standard Condition M08 Site Investigation - new
4. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of surface water
drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full in accordance with
the approved plans.
5. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system,
all surface water drainage from impermeable parking areas, roadways and hardstandings
for vehicles shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a
capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass
through the interceptor.
6. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the
undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and
Country Planning Act, 1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act, 1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning
Authority, and the Local Planning Authority has given its approval in writing. The
planning obligation will provide that a commuted sum as required by Policy H8 of the
City of Saford Unitary Development Plan and SPG7 Provision of Open Space and
Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development, will be paid to the
Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes
7. Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme for the provision of recycling
facilities within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation
of any of the residential units hereby approved.
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
8. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme(s) demonstrating
sustainable construction techniques , the use of renewable energy sources and energy
efficiency in the design and operation of the buildings and associated external areas
(including sustainable urban drainage systems) has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented and
maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme(s) prior to the first
occupation of the development hereby approved.
9. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
10. No development shall be commenced unless and until a lighting scheme has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved
scheme shall be implemented and thereafter retained prior to the first occupation of the
development.
11. No development shall be commenced until full details of the proposed bin stores have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
approved bin stores shall be implemented and thereafter retained prior to the fist
occupation of any apartment.
12. No development shall be commenced until a scheme detailing security measures capable
of meeting the standards of the Greater Manchester Police 'Secured By Design' award
scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved
plans prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
13. No development shall be commenced until a scheme detailing security measures capable
of meeting the standards of the Greater Manchester Police 'Secured By Design' award
scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved
plans prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
13. Development shall not commence until a scheme for traffic calming on Boat Yard Lane
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such
scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any
dwelling served by this access.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. To reduce the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means
of surface water disposal in accordance with policy EN16 of the replacement City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan
5. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy EN22 of the
replacement City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
6. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation
space for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford
Adopted UDP, Policy H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP and SPG7
Provision of Open Space and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential
Development.
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
11. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
12. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
13. To protect the interests and safety of traffic on Boat Yard Lane in accordance with policy
A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The site falls within the 2005 declared Air Quality Management Area for Nitrogen
Dioxide.
2. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the
Applicant should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their
proposal. Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before
undertaking any operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including
coal mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works.
Property specific summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and
underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal
Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762
6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
3. 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.
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the
Environment Agency.
5. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be
satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions
precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may
be taken by the Council.
6. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
7. All bat species are legally protected from any harm, damage or disturbance under the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way
Act 2000. It is a criminal offence to knowingly or recklessly harm, damage, or disturb
bats or their roosts. Bats are also protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats)
Regulations 1994. Approval must be sought from English Nature for any works affecting
bats or their roost sites.
8. The applicant should incorporate a landscaping scheme composed solely of native
species. If there are distinct local varieties where the local gene pool should be
maintained, then stocks of local provenance should be used. British forms tend to be
more resistant to frost and damp than their European counterparts, and flower and fruit at
times more appropriate to the British animals that depend on them.
APPLICATION No:
06/52688/FUL
APPLICANT:
Peel Investments (North) Ltd And Manchester Ship Canal
Co
LOCATION:
Wharfside Irlam Wharf Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of four buildings comprising 16 light industrial
units (Classes B1(c) and B8) and one office unit (Class
B1(a)) together with associated landscaping and car
parking
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is currently vacant and was formerly the curtilage to a previous industrial use. The
land extends to 1.54 hectares is overgrown and naturally vegetated but with no species worthy
of retention
The site is accessed off Irlam Wharf Road adjacent to Cadishead Way. The adjacent land to
the north and east is occupied by industrial and storage uses. Adjoining the site to the west is
the Manchester Ship Canal.
The development comprises four buildings (16 individual units) the proposed use of which is
either B1(c) (light industrial) or B8 (warehousing). Units A, B and C will be single storey
with a mezzanine upper floor in ancillary office use. The upper floor area measures 7.5m by
5.3m. Unit A would measure 38m by 24m, unit B would measure 22m by 26m and unit C
would measure 26m by 72m. The units would be of standard construction – brick with colour
coated steel cladding, roller shutter doors and the height would be 8.8m.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
A detached three storey office building is also proposed measuring 14.5m in height by 20.5m
in length. The building would be constructed of brick and glazing panels with a tiled hipped
roof. The development has been designed around a single access of Irlam Wharf Road.
It is proposed to provide 104 parking spaces including 14 disabled bays.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency: – No objection subject to conditions to protect the Ship Canal.
United Utilities - No response received to date
Trafford MBC – No response received to date
GMP Architectural Liaison Officer – No response received to date
Strategic Director of Environmental Services: no objection but recommends several
conditions be attached including a maximum noise levels.
United Utilities: no objection subject to satisfactory drainage
Northbank Industrial Park Management Park – No objection
Manchester Ship Canal Company – No objection subject to condition restricting access on the
embankment
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 12th July 2006
A press notice was published on 13th July 2006
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation or objection in response to the planning
application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
UR2 – An Inclusive Social Infrastructure
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: E4/7 Sites for employment development.
Other policies: ST3 – Employment Supply
DES1 Respecting Context
DES6 Waterside Development
DES7 Amenity
DES9 Landscaping
DES10 Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is allocated for employment uses and Policy E4/7 comments that offices, general
industry, storag44e and distribution or light industrial uses are suitable on this site and would
complement the adjacent industrial uses. The main planning issues therefore are whether the
scheme should incorporate a dedicated pedestrian footpath along the canal side in accordance
with the provisions of the adopted UDP and whether a maximum noise level condition should
be attached .
Adopted UDP policy DES6 requires all new developments adjacent to the Manchester Ship
Canal to facilitate pedestrian access to, along and, where appropriate, across the waterway by
the provision of safe, attractive and overlooked routes.
The site is bounded by the Manchester Ship Canal to the west. The Canal is located down a
steep embankment approximately 8m below the level of the site. The canal frontage extends
some 260m from Cadishead Way to the boundary with the Irlam Container Terminal.
I consider that an attempt to construct a dedicated pedestrian footpath along the canal side up
to the boundary with the container wharf would not be desirable due to the characteristics of
the site. Contrary to policy DES6, it is considered that any pedestrian access would not be
attractive to users due to the steepness of the embankment and proximity to the container port.
As such on balance I consider the scheme would be better served by not requesting a footpath
route along the canal-side.
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has requested that a noise level condition be
attached to protect nearby noise sensitive premises. I note that the nearest residential
properties are located over 700m on Alexandra Grove. Also as the site has been allocated for
the uses proposed in this application I do not consider it necessary in this instance to attach a
noise level condition.
The scale, massing and height of the proposed industrial units and the office building is
considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the street scene as the area is
characterised by modern industrial units and office buildings. The proposed buildings would
respect the context given the neighbouring uses of a van hire compound and the container port
that have industrial and office units similar to that proposed. The design and materials
proposed are considered to be acceptable and appropriate for this location and in accordance
with policy DES1 of the adopted UDP
I have attached a condition requiring the developer to submit a statement detailing their
intentions regarding site security and crime prevention and reduction. A condition has also
been attached relating to the need for a 2.4m security fence to be erected to the perimeter of
the site. This is in accordance with policy DES10 of the adopted UDP.
The site includes provision for 104 car parking spaces of which 14 would be for disabled
users. The level of car parking proposed is in accordance with appendix B and C and policy
A10 of the adopted UDP. The access to the site would be from a single entrance point located
on Irlam Wharf Road. This would provide both an entrance and exit to the site. The internal
road layout is considered acceptable and I have no serious concerns over highway safety for
vehicle or pedestrian users of the site. I have attach a condition requiring the developer to
provide cycle storage facilities on site.
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with both the site specific policies
and the other policies of the Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing
materials to be used for the walls and roof; of the development have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be
undertaken using the approved materials.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary
and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
4. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the
disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such a scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the
approved plans.
5. 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.
6. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system,
all surface water drainage from vehicle parking shall be passed through an oil interceptor
designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.
7. The site boundaries shall be fenced with a security fence to a minimum height of 2.4
metres in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning
Authority prior to the commencement of development of the site. The fencing, as
approved, shall be erected prior to the first occupation of the premises and retained
thereafter.
8. Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme and statement indicating what
measures are employed to minimize the risk of crime shall be submitted to and approved
by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme and statement as approved shall be
implemented prior to the first occupation of the premises and retained thereafter.
9. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the buildings hereby
approved shall be a minimum of 300mm above the adjacant road level.
10. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use that part of the site to be
used by vehicles shall be laid out, surfaced and sealed to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority and shall thereafter be made available at all times the premises are in
use.
11. Within four months of the date of this decision notice full details of the location, design
and construction of bicycle parking facilities have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved bicycle parking facilities shall
thereafter be constructed and made available for use before the first occupation of the
building.
12. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soak away system,
all surface water drainage from vehicle parking shall be passed through an oil interceptor
designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being
drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.
13. Any facilities for the storage of chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and
surrounded by impervious bund walls, details of which shall be submitted to the Director
of Development Services for approval. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at
least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the
compound should be at least equivalent to 110% of the capacity of the largest tank, or
25% of the total combined capacity of the interconnected tanks whichever is the greatest.
All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The
drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or
underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected
from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be
detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008B Development-Building in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
6. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
7. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
8. In accordance with DES10 Design and Crime
9. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future users of the development in accordance
with policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
10. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
11. To ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of bicycles within the curtilage
of the site in accordance with policy A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
12. To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution.
13. To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities prior to the commencement of
development to discuss drainage and sewer issues
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
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.
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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
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
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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;
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.
In the supporting information for the previous planning application, 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 was 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 ensuite accommodation. On the above basis, I am satisfied that the applicant 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 University is however planning to reduce the
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
number of rooms within Lester Court by 55 in order to create living rooms in each of the
existing 3 person flats. Thus the overall strategy in relation to the provision of student
bedrooms remains unchanged. In fact the increase from 348 to 379 rooms in this building
would not change the numbers of provision for the university; there would actually be a
reduction of 24 bedrooms overall.
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.
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
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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 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.
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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, 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.
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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
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.
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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.
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, car parking
and access
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
With regards to the siting of the proposed unit and the access, it is necessary to discuss why
these are considered acceptable. I have amended the report to address the issues and the
description of the proposal has been amended to include the reserved matter of means of
access as per the application forms. I have also attached a further condition regarding
minimum floor levels.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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).
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).
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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
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
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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, siting and access
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. The five units will be sited square-on to each other
and the northern elevation of unit 3 would be in line with the northern elevation of unit 4
(currently under construction), which gives a clear building line along this road.
The access to the site would be off the roundabout and the car parking and servicing would
located be to the front of the unit. There is already the existing situation where the car parks
for units 1 and 2 are to the front of the units facing the roundabout. The car parking for units
4 and 5 is also located to the front of the units. Weldmesh fencing, trees and hedges will be
located around the perimeter of the site in order to soften the landscape and improve the
quality and appearance of the commerce park. I therefore consider that the scheme accords
with the above policy.
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 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
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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.
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. 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
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
approved and shall be retained thereafter.
5. The car parking spaces, servicing area and cycle parking provision shown on drawing
number 4170-002C shall be provided and made available for use prior to occupation of
the unit and shall be retained thereafter.
6. The minimum floor levels of thr unit shall be 300mm above the adjacant road.
(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
6. 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 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
APPLICATION No:
06/52995/HH
APPLICANT:
L Hudson
LOCATION:
3 Montonmill Gardens Eccles M30 8BQ
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey side extension
WARD:
Winton
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached dwelling house located on Montonmill Gardens in
Eccles.
The application is for the erection of a two storey extension to the side of the dwelling house
3 Montonmill Gardens. The extension would provide an extended kitchen at ground floor
level and a fourth bedroom at first floor level.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1-12 (inclusive) Monton Lodge, Montonfields.
1, 2 and 5 Montonmill Gardens.
Land formerly Monton Traders and labour Club, 3 Parrin Lane.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection to the planning application. The following issues have
been raised:
Overlooking
Loss of privacy
Noise and disturbance
Overbearing
Work has already commenced
The application is being reported to Panel as the applicant is an employee of the Council.
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
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
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
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 property already has a single storey extension at the side which was originally built as an
attached garage and has since been converted in to a study. The existing single storey
extension lines up with the front of the house. The proposed extension would be set back
1.8m from the front wall of the dwellinghouse and would be set in 1m from the side
boundary. This is in accordance with Policy HE8 of the Council's Supplementary Planning
Guidance for House Extensions. It would measure 2.4m wide and would be 6m in length
extending over the rear part of the existing ground floor study and lining up with the main
rear wall of the dwelling house. It has been designed to have a lower ridge height than the
existing house. It would be constructed in materials to match the existing house. The windows
would also match the style of the existing house. I consider that the extension is of a good
design and would not detract from the street scene, in accordance with Policy DES1.
The extension would have a new kitchen window at ground floor level on the rear elevation
and bedroom windows at first floor level on both the front and rear elevations. No windows
are proposed on the side elevation. Privacy distances to both the front and rear of the
dwellinghouse are in excess of the Council's standards as set out in its Supplementary
Planning Document for House Extensions. The side wall of the adjoining dwellinghouse No.1
Montonmill Gardens which faces towards the proposed extension does not have any habitable
room windows on it and I am therefore satisfied that the proposed extension would not have
any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining residents, in accordance with Policy
DES7.
In addition to the above, the objector is concerned that the proposed extension would result in
an increase in the level of noise and disturbance as it would be close to his kitchen and
bedroom. Given that the extension is for domestic purposes, I do not consider that there
would be any unacceptable increase in noise as a direct result of the proposed extension and
do not consider that such concerns warrant the refusal of the application.
CONCLUSION
The proposal accords with the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on House
Extensions, policies 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.
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 17th August 2006
Therefore I recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
81