PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
APPLICATION No:
06/53387/FUL
APPLICANT:
Development Processes Group Plc
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To The Former Ellesmere Public House
Walkden Road Worsley M28 7BQ
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey building with additional level of living
accommodation in roof space to provide 11 apartments together
with associated car parking and alteration to existing vehicular
access
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
To the south of the site is the former Ellesmere Public House, a Grade II listed building, which is
currently in use as offices. To the east, the site is bounded by Walkden Road, beyond which are
residential and commercial properties. To the north are further residential and commercial
properties. To the west are the rears of residential properties which front Brindley Street. The
application site is currently used for car parking.
There are three trees within the existing footpath to the front of the site. These are not the subject of
a Tree Preservation Order as they are on highway land, but given their size and type, make an
important contribution to the amenity of the area.
The application has been amended from that originally submitted, in relation to its design, layout
and elevation treatment. The proposed building would be L shaped and would be largely three
storeys in height. There would be a two storey element adjacent to 91 Walkden Road. The proposed
building would be a minimum of 6.6m from the back of the footpath on Walkden Road and 8.2m
from the north elevation of the Ellesmere. An area of open space would be provided between the
proposed building and the Ellesmere and between the proposed building and the car parking area.
Vehicular access into the site would be from Walkden Road, utlising an existing access point
adjacent to the Ellesmere. There would be a separate pedestrian access point at the other northern of
the site, close to 91 Walkden Road. A total of nine car parking spaces would be provided to the
front of the building.
SITE HISTORY
In November 2003, planning permission and listed building consent were granted for the erection
of a two storey extension to the Ellesmere to provide additional office accommodation (ref:
03/46683/FUL and 03/46684/LBC). These permissions have not been implemented.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections but recommends conditions requiring the
undertaking of a risk assessment to establish the potential for on-site contamination and the
submission of a noise assessment.
United Utilities – no objections
Police Architectural Liaison Advisor – comments received. The gap between the proposed building
and the adjoining shop should be closed off with a lockable gate of a minimum of 1.8m in height
and the front garden and the car park should be separated by a fence and self-closing gate at least
1.8m high. The 1.5m high fences and gates to the car park should be 1.8m high, but the fence
defining the front garden should be no more than 1.1m high.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 13th September 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on 7th September 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2-16 Park Road
1A, 1-11 Brindley Street
2 Royle Street
79-91 (O), 132-166 (E) Walkden Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received letters of objection from the occupiers of five neighbouring properties in response
to the planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:
Loss of light
Loss of parking in the area
Loss of privacy
Insufficient parking for the proposed development
The need for the proposal
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP1: Economy in the Use of Land and Building
DP2: Enhancing the Quality of Life
DP3: Quality in New Development
UR1: Urban Renaissance
T9: Demand Management
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: ST11: Location of New Development
DES1: Respecting Context
DES9 - Landscaping
DES10: Design and Crime
DES11: Design Statement
H1: Provision of New Housing Development
H2: Managing the Supply of Housing
H8: Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
CH2: Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP1: Regional Development Principles
RDF1: Main Development Locations
L4: Regional Housing Provision
RT6: Parking Policy and Provision
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: the principle of the proposed
development; the design of the proposed building; impact on neighbouring residents; impact on the
highway network; and public open space. These will be discussed in turn below.
The Principle of the Proposed Development
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.
Policy H1 requires all new housing development to comply with a number of criteria, including:
contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the area; be built at an
appropriate density; provide a high quality environment and adequate level of amenity; and make
adequate provision for open space.
Policy H2 requires the release of land for housing development to be managed in accordance with
the sequential approach set out in Policy ST11.
Policy HOU1 of the recently adopted Housing Planning Guidance states that within West Salford,
Broughton Park, Claremont and the northern part of Weaste and Seedley, the large majority of
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
dwellings within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
Apartments are likely to be most appropriate form of development on the city’s Town and
Neighbourhood Centres.
Policy HOU2 states that where apartments are proposed, they should provide a broad mix of
dwelling sizes, both in terms of the number of bedrooms and the net residential floorspace of the
apartments. Small dwellings (i.e. studios and one bedroom apartments) should not predominate,
and a significant proportion of three bedroom apartments should be provided wherever practicable.
Smaller dwellings undoubtedly have a role to
play in meeting the needs of some one and two person households, but they should not be allowed
to dominate new apartment developments and should have a floorspace and layout that makes them
adaptable to changing needs (typically 57 square metres or above).
Policy DP1 of RSS requires economy in the use of land and buildings. It states that development
plans should adopt a sequential approach to meeting housing needs as follows: firstly, the effective
use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban areas; secondly, the use of previously
developed land; and finally the development of previously undeveloped land, where it would avoid
areas of important open space, is well located in relation to houses, jobs, other services and
infrastructure and is or can be made accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.
Policy DP1 of Draft RSS also encourages the effective use of land, buildings and infrastructure and
advocates the sequential approach to meeting development needs, as outlined in Adopted RSS
Policy DP1.
The principle of development on this site has been established through the granting of planning
permission in 2003 for the erection an extension to the former Ellesmere Public House on this site.
It is a brownfield site in an urban area, and its re-use complies with the provisions of national and
local government policy and guidance.
In relation to the principle of residential development on the site, it is well served by public
transport, being only a short distance from Walkden train station and a number of bus services
operating along Walkden Road. It is within 400m of Walkden town centre and the services and
facilities therein. The provision of apartments on the site would contribute to the provision of a mix
of dwelling types and sizes in the area, which is largely characterised by houses rather than
apartments.
The proposal consists of seven two bedroom apartments and four one bedroom apartments. All
except one of the one bedroom apartments would have a floor area of above 57m2. The application
site is constrained in various way and the design of the building has been affected by the existing
trees and the impact on the setting of the Listed Building. The planning application was submitted
several months prior to the Adoption of the Housing Planning Guidance. The majority of the
apartments would be two-bedroom and although there is a lack of three-bedroom apartments the
overall scheme consists of quite a small number of apartments, in an area that consists of
predominantly family dwellings. I would therefore consider the size and density of apartments to
be acceptable in terms of Policy HOU2.
The Design of the Proposed Building
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
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 DES9 relates to landscaping and considers that development will be required to incorporate
hard and soft landscaping provision, where appropriate.
Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage
crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime.
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.
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.
The design of the proposal has been amended following discussions between the applicants and
Urban Vision and the Council’s Design and Heritage team. This has resulted in a more
contemporary design which would provide a contrast to the adjacent Listed Building, whilst
respecting its character and setting. It has also resulted in the provision of an area of open space
between the proposed building and the Ellesmere. The proposed building would be lower in height
than the Ellesmere. The building would be constructed using stone and render for the elevations
and aluminium for the roof. The applicants have submitted samples of the stone to be used, which
would be similar in terms of colour and texture to the stone of the Ellesmere. I have attached a
condition requiring the submission of samples of all the materials to be used for the external
elevations of the building in order to ensure that they are of a sufficiently high quality and enhance
the setting of the Listed Building and the surrounding area generally.
The Council’s Design and Heritage team has questioned the revised layout of the building, which
results in the car parking being provided in front of the proposed building (between the building
and the trees) rather than at the side as originally proposed, and the proposed building set further
back within the site. They have commented that the street scene will suffer from the building being
set back and that other properties in the area are at the back of pavement. However the existence of
the trees has to a large extent dictated the location of the building within the site, as setting the
building at the back edge of pavement would have an unacceptable impact on the trees and would
be likely to require their removal. On balance, I consider that the need to retain the trees, given their
contribution to the amenity of the area, is more important than the need to locate the building closer
to the footpath, and I am therefore satisfied with its proposed siting.
The Greater Manchester Police Authority have commented that there should be fencing between
the front garden and the car park and the proposed fencing and gates to the car park should be 1.8m
high. The proposed fencing would be 1.5m in height. This aspect of the application has been
looked at in detail by the Council’s Design and Heritage team who have advised the applicant on
the height and design of the proposed fencing to ensure that it would not have an unacceptable
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
impact on the setting of the adjacent Listed Building. I have attached a note informing the applicant
of the comments relating to a lockable gate between the application site and the adjoining shop I
have also attached a condition requiring details of landscaping including all details of the proposed
fencing within the site and samples of the proposed fencing is included within the materials
condition. I am satisfied that this will ensure that the landscaping and boundary treatment meets the
criteria of Adopted Policy DES9.
In view of the above, I am satisfied that the design of the proposed building would enhance the
character of the area and would enhance the setting of the listed building. I therefore consider that
the application accords with the above policies.
Impact on Residential 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.
The amendments made to the layout of the building have resulted in it being located closer to the
residential properties to the rear of the site. 1A Brindley Avenue lies directly adjacent to the
application site and south west of the proposed development. No 1A Brindley Avenue has number
of windows on the east elevation. All of the windows overlook the existing Listed Building due to
its orientation. The adjacent dwellings on Brindley Avenue lie south west of the proposed
development and would be in excess of 22m from the side and rear elevations. I would therefore
not consider there would be an unacceptable impact with regards to overshadowing. All of the
windows on the rear elevation of the proposed building would be to non-habitable rooms (kitchens
and bathrooms). The applicant has confirmed that these would be obscure glazed in order to protect
the amenity of neighbouring residents. A condition has been attached to ensure that this is the case,
and in view of this, I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable level of overlooking or loss
of privacy on the residents to the rear of the site as a result. All the habitable rooms would be
located within the front elevation of the building. There would be a minimum of 26m between the
closest habitable room windows within the proposed building and the properties on the opposite
side of Walkden Road. This exceeds the 21m ordinarily required between facing habitable room
windows and is therefore considered sufficient to ensure that the residents opposite would not be
unacceptably detrimentally affected by the proposal. This distance is also sufficient to ensure that
the building would not have an unacceptable overbearing impact on residents.
Impact on the Highway Network
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 relates to demand management. It also covers the issue of car parking standards
and states that standards should be more restrictive in urban areas to reflect local characteristics,
such as higher levels of public transport and higher development density.
Policy RT6 of Draft RSS states that local authorities should develop a coordinated approach to
parking provision as part of an all-embracing strategy to manage travel demand. Plans and
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
strategies should incorporate maximum parking standards (parking for disabled people being the
only situation where minimum standards will be applicable); manage car use by implementing
workplace, education and personal travel plans which should be developed alongside public
transport, cycling and pedestrian network improvements; and provide dedicated and secure parking
facilities for cycles and two wheel motorised vehicles;
A total of nine car parking spaces would be provided within the site, including one space for
disabled drivers. The applicants also propose to revise the car parking layout to the front of the
Ellesmere by providing a total of eight spaces for the existing offices. An area for the storage of
bicycles would also be provided within the site. Given the number of apartments proposed, the
site’s proximity to public transport links and Walkden town centre and the provision of cycle
storage within the site, the number of car parking spaces is considered to be acceptable and in line
with the above policies. Whilst I acknowledge residents’ concerns regarding the loss of the existing
car park on the site as a result of the proposals, it should be noted that this is not a public car park
and is only available for use by the occupiers of the offices in the Ellesmere. Whilst the proposal
would result in the loss of some of this car parking, I do not consider that this would have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on highway safety, given the proximity of the site to public
transport links.
Open Space
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open
space within housing developments. The amount of open space to be provided shall meet the
identified need deriving from the development. It shall be calculated having regard to the aim of
achieving the standards of Policy R2 and by reference to the approach set out in Supplementary
Planning Documents. The open space will be provided either as part of the development or through
an equivalent financial contribution on a standard cost per bed space for both capital and
maintenance.
In accordance with the above, the applicants have agreed to make a contribution of £15, 660
towards the provision of public open space in the vicinity of the site. A condition has been attached
requiring the applicant to enter into a Section 106 agreement. This is in accordance with Policy H8
and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on open space
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Following discussions with Urban Vision and the Council’s Design and Heritage team, a number of
improvements have been made to the scheme. These have resulted in a more contemporary design
and the use of materials which would respect the setting of the listed building. The amended
scheme will also ensure that the existing trees to the front of the site are retained.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposal represents efficient use of a previously developed site within an urban
area. It is in close proximity to public transport facilities and Walkden town centre. The design
would respect the setting of the listed building and the surrounding area in general. Given the layout
and design of the building, there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
neighbouring residents through overlooking or loss of privacy. The application accords with the
relevant policies of the UDP and RSS and I therefore recommend that it be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment.
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the external elevations, roof and boundary treatment of the development 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 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 the initial implementation of the planting scheme shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
commencement of the development hereby approved, the finished floor levels of the building
shall be a minimum of 300mm above the level of the adjacent road.
5. The windows in the rear elevation of the building hereby approved shall be obscurely glazed
prior to first occupation of the block of apartments and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
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. The car parking spaces shown on drawing no. 2647:01 Rev C shall be made available prior to
first occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved and shall be available at all times the
premises is in use.
8. 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. Such an assessment
shall assess the impact of noise from Walkden Road and shall identify noise attenuation
measures to reduce the impact of noise on the residents of the development hereby approved.
The approved attenuation measures shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation of any
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
of the apartments hereby approved and retained thereafter.
9. Prior to the commencement of development a desk study shall be been submitted and agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The study shall investigate and produce an
assessment of the risk of the potential for on-site contamination. If the desk study identifies
potential contamination, prior to commencement of development the developer shall submit a
site investigation report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation
shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on
site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under
the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health
and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground
conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on
services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological
systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained
within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the
site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the Local Planning Authority.
Reason(s)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Reason: In order to reduce the risk of flooding, in accordance with Policy EN19.
5. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
6. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes and in order to encourage
waste recycling, in accordance with Policy A10 of the Adopted UDP.
7. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
8. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
9. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities regarding connections to the sewer
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
3. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the following plans:
4. The applicant is advised that construction works should not take place outside the following
hours:
Monday to Friday: 08:00 - 18:00
Saturday: 08:00 - 13:00
Construction should not take place on Sundays and Bank Holidays
5. The Police Architectural Liaison Advisor advise that a 1.8m high lockable gate be erected
between the proposed building and the adjacent shop, please ensure these details are included
within the required landscape scheme.
6. Please note this approval relates to the following plans:
Drawing No.
Revision
2647:01
2647:07
2647:08
2647:09
2647:11
2647:12
2647:14
2647:15
C
A
A
A
APPLICATION No:
06/53592/OUT
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
APPLICANT:
Eccles Masonic Hall Ltd
LOCATION:
Eccles Masonic Hall Half Edge Lane Eccles M30 9BA
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the layout, scale, appearance
and means of access for a new masonic hall and 42 dwellings
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 0.66 hectare site fronting Half Edge Lane in the Ellesmere Park area of
the City. The site currently accommodates a large, four storey, red brick building occupying a
central position within the site, surrounded by an extensive area of hardstanding used for surface
car parking on the northernmost half of the site and a former bowling green and associated
greenspace to the south. The site’s northern boundary with Half Edge Lane is well defined by a two
to three metre high brick wall. The site’s boundaries are further strengthened by a group of over 60
trees, most of which are mature, broadleaved species that are protected by a Tree Preservation
Order (Ref: TPO 14). The site is currently used by Eccles Masonic Hall Ltd as a meeting space for
the Masons themselves and is also privately hired as a venue for social functions.
Buildings in residential use surround the application site. Dwellings on Half Edge Lane, Preston
Avenue, Bindloss Avenue, Emerson and Crawley Avenue lie to the east, some seven metres
beyond the site boundary, and comprise a mix of semi-detached and terraced houses and flats in
buildings of up to three storeys in height. Eccleshome, a three-storey residential home for the
elderly operated by the Masonic Society, is located directly to the south. Immediately to the west,
lie detached and semi-detached dwelling houses on both Doughty Avenue and Half Edge Lane,
including a detached bungalow directly adjacent to the site (44 Half Edge Lane). A collection of
larger, predominantly residential buildings lie to the north, on the opposite side of Half Edge Lane,
including a number of Victorian villa’s that have been converted into flats and a recently developed
four-storey apartment development that directly faces the application site.
This outline application seeks consent for the layout, scale, appearance and access to a development
comprising a replacement Masonic Hall at the southern end of the site and a four-storey residential
apartment building fronting Half Edge Lane to the north. Landscaping has been reserved for
detailed consideration at a later date should permission be granted.
The proposed residential units are contained within a single ‘V-shaped’ block focused on the Half
Edge Lane frontage and the northeastern side of the site. A central courtyard area has been
incorporated to provide amenity space for future residents and a visual break between the two
buildings. Of the proposed 42 apartments, 3 would have three bedrooms (7%), 32 would have two
bedrooms (76%), 7 would have one bedroom (17%) and 29 would have a gross internal floorspace
over 57 square metres (69%). All of the proposed units would have a private terrace or balcony.
The building’s two dominant facing materials are brick and artstone. The scale and mass of the
building on the Half Edge Lane elevation is broken up by the introduction of a deeply recessed
glazed link at the main pedestrian entrance point. The proposed building has a flat roof and the
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
fourth floor is deeply recessed and is clad in grey coloured panels that acknowledge the
characteristic natural slate roofs of Ellesmere Park.
The palette of materials is carried through to the proposed replacement Masonic Hall building to
ensure architectural continuity. Both buildings share a similarly scaled stone box feature defining
principal windows. The entrance to the Hall is via a well-defined entrance plaza covered by a
canopy, supported by pillars. The ground floor of the building would be used as a public function
room with ancillary bar and kitchen areas whilst the upper floor is devoted solely to Masonic
meeting rooms and ancillary facilities.
Both buildings on the site would be raised to accommodate undercroft car parking beneath. A total
of 105 car parking spaces are provided on site, 41 for the residential element, 57 for the replacement
Masonic Hall and seven overflow/visitor car parking spaces, above ground, on the western
boundary. A total of 10 disabled parking bays would be provided together with 9 secure
motorcycle parking spaces and 17 secure cycle parking spaces. Vehicular and pedestrian access to
both buildings would be via the existing access point on Half Edge Lane only. Pedestrian access to
the apartments would be via a slip resistant, timber decked walkway behind the trees leading to the
glazed entrance point on the Half Edge Land frontage, whilst a vehicular access road would lead to
the entrance of the undercroft parking area, beneath the raised courtyard, between the two
buildings. Direct access to both buildings from the undercroft parking area would be provided by
both stairs and lifts. A drop off point is provided in front of the car park entrance. Approximately
half of the length of the front brick boundary wall on Half Edge Lane would be lowered to one
metre in height to incorporate enhanced visibility splays.
The applicant has submitted the following documents in support of the application:
Design and Access Statement
Planning Statement
Transport Assessment
Tree Survey
Bat and Ecological Survey
Noise Assessment
Supporting Visualisations
A report documenting the Evolution of the Scheme
Financial Development Appraisal
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
The applicants have stated that this application is driven by the need to find a solution to the
retention and redevelopment of a Masonic Hall on the site. They state that the physical state of the
existing Hall has been in steady decline over a number of years and that recently commissioned
surveys concluded that the building is becoming increasingly unsound. The total cost of remedying
the building’s structural and mechanical/electrical faults is given at over £1 million. They state that
without access to such funds, they must either move to another premises in the locality or develop a
new purpose-built Hall. Their preferred option is to develop a new, more space efficient Hall on
site as this provides them with the opportunity to develop a bespoke building that fully meets their
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
operational requirements. They state that this can only be achieved by introducing a relatively high
number of housing units onto the application site to finance the redevelopment.
SITE HISTORY
Numerous development proposals have come forward in recent years on this site. The City Council
has been engaged in a lengthy period of negotiation with developers in an attempt to identify an
acceptable approach to the redevelopment of the site. This application is the culmination of those
efforts.
Planning permission was refused on 21 October 2004 for the ‘demolition of existing Masonic Hall
and erection of a four storey building comprising 56 apartments together with replacement Masonic
Hall at basement level with associated access and landscape works’ (Ref: 04/48859/FUL) for the
following reasons:
insufficient provision for open space and children’s play space;
design, scale and mass would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area;
crime prevention;
insufficient car parking;
unacceptable impact on protected trees;
insufficient on-site open space;
unacceptable outlook from ground floor flats;
unsatisfactory information submitted on the potential for noise nuisance;
unsatisfactory information submitted on the potential impacts on highway safety.
A second application was submitted in December 2005 that sought outline planning permission for
the siting, design and means of access to a new Masonic Hall and the erection of 49 apartments
(Ref: 05/51917/OUT). This application was subsequently withdrawn following objections from
local residents at a public consultation event on 15 February 2006, to allow for revisions to be made
to the scheme.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services - No objection in principle providing conditions are
attached to any consent to secure the following:
hours of construction works and operations be limited to protect the amenity of
neighbouring residents;
noise from fixed plant and machinery is limited to protect neighbouring residents from
noise nuisance;
adequate glazing and ventilation be installed to mitigate the effects of road traffic noise to
protect the amenity of future occupiers; and
the submission of a detailed site investigation report, including appropriate mitigation
measures, be submitted, approved in writing and implemented in full prior to first
occupation to address on-site gas and ground contamination; and
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
that the proposed Masonic Lodge’s hours of operation be restricted to protect residential
amenity;
that a noise mitigation strategy addressing noise emanating from the proposed Hall be
submitted and approved in writing before development commences and thereafter
implemented in full.
United Utilities – No objection in principle. Advice is provided.
The Environment Agency – No objection in principle. Advice is provided
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objection in principle but wishes to
see private garden areas fenced and gated to ensure visitors are kept to the entrance fronts of the
buildings.
…
…
…
…
“
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – Commenting on the submitted Bat and Ecological Survey, state
that despite being carried out by a suitably qualified surveyor, the bat survey was not
comprehensive in scope due the time of year the survey was carried out and the fact that the roof
space and cellar were not fully inspected. Nonetheless, the surveyor concluded, there are a
multitude of potential roosting places for the pipistrelle bat associated with the exterior of the
building [and that] the likelihood of some use [of the building] is fairly high’. The survey
also highlighted that two bat species have been recorded in the area and on the development site
itself.
All species of bats and their roost sites are specially protected and on that basis they recommend
that further survey work for bats be required, and if found, appropriate mitigation measures be
agreed in writing before development commences and subsequently implemented in full.
As all nesting birds, their eggs and their young are legally protected; it is also recommended that
any vegetation or tree removal works required be carried out outside the optimum bird-nesting
season (March to July inclusive) unless nesting birds have been shown to be absent.
Ellesmere Park Residents Association – No response to date.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by way of site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
21-23A (odds) Half Edge Lane, Eccles
29-53 (odds) Half Edge Lane, Eccles
40-44 (evens) Half Edge Lane, Eccles
60-64 (evens) Half Edge Lane, Eccles
Flats 1-17 (inclusive) 25 Half Edge Lane, Eccles
Clarendon Business Centre, 38 Half Edge Lane, Eccles
2-36 (evens) Preston Avenue, Eccles
19-29 (odds) Preston Avenue, Eccles
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
33-61 (odds) Preston Avenue, Eccles
4-9 (inclusive) Crawley Avenue, Eccles
1-11 (inclusive) Doughty Avenue, Eccles
1-7 (inclusive) Emerson Avenue, Eccles
Flat 7, Firwood Court, Ellesmere Road, Eccles
2 Bindloss Avenue, Eccles
26-52 (evens) Bindloss Avenue, Eccles
3 Bindloss Avenue, Eccles
9-31 (odds) Bindloss Avenue, Eccles
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 10 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised: Loss of trees will have a detrimental visual impact and result in a loss of privacy
Design not in keeping with surroundings in terms of scale, massing, height and density and
character
Increased traffic generation resulting in additional demand for on-street car parking to the
detriment of highway safety
Noise nuisance particularly in respect of the Masonic Hall itself
Overlooking and loss of privacy
Accuracy of submitted plans
The need for additional flats/apartments in the area is questioned
The proposal would lead to an oversupply of apartments in the area
Visual impact of blank gable facing the 44 Half Edge Lane
Loss of sunlight and daylight
Accuracy of submitted Transport Assessment
Loss of TV Reception
Drainage capacity questioned
Loss of trees and impact on remaining trees
Poor state of the public footpath on Half Edge Lane in front of the application site making
access for people with disabilities difficult
Traffic calming required on Half Edge Lane
Negative impact on property values
Loss of overspill car parking facility for Hope Hospital
Construction works may have an adverse effect on neighbouring properties
Light pollution created by vehicle headlights on the site
Despite submitting an objection to the proposal as a whole, one local resident did welcome the
replacement of the Masonic Hall that they consider an eyesore.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
The following policies from the adopted RSS are considered to be of relevance:
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
DP1 – Economy in the use of Land and Buildings
UR4 – Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
UR7 – Regional Housing Provision
ER13 – Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
None
Other policies: ST11 – Location of New Development
ST12 – Development Density
ST14 – Global Environment
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Circulation and Movement
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
H1- Provision of New Housing Development
H2 – Managing the Supply of Housing
H4 – Affordable Housing
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A8 – Impact of Development of the Highway Network
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
Policy EN10 – Protection of Species
Policy EN13 – Protected Trees
Policy EN17 – Pollution Control
Policy R1 – Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities
Policy R2 – Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
DEV5 – Planning Conditions and Obligations
OTHER LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
Ellesmere Park Supplementary Planning Document
Housing Planning Guidance
Salford Greenspace Strategy
Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document
Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document
Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
The following policies of the Draft RSS – The North West Plan (March 2006) are considered to be
of relevance:
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
L4 - Regional Housing Provision
EM16 – Energy Conservation and Efficiency
EM17 – Renewable Energy
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the density proposed is acceptable; whether an acceptable mix
of residential units is proposed; whether the design of the building is acceptable; whether there
would be an unacceptable impact on the amenity of users and neighbouring residents; whether the
applicant has adequately issues relating to crime prevention; whether the proposed access
arrangements and level of car, motorcycle and cycle parking are acceptable; whether there would
be an acceptable contribution towards open space and environmental improvements in the vicinity;
whether the proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to,
protected trees; whether the ecological impact of the proposal is acceptable; whether the loss of the
existing bowling green is acceptable in policy terms and whether the proposed development
complies with other relevant policies of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal
with each of the issues in turn below.
Principle of the Redevelopment of the Site
UDP 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 where necessary. The re-use
and conversion of existing buildings is made a priority followed by previously developed land in
locations that are well served by a variety of means of transport and are accessible to housing,
employment, services and other infrastructure.
Policy H2 requires the release of land for housing development to be managed in accordance with
the sequential approach set out in Policy ST11.
“
RSS Policy DP1 requires economy in the use of land and buildings. It states that development plans
should adopt a sequential approach to meeting housing needs as follows: firstly, the effective use of
existing buildings and infrastructure within urban areas; secondly, the use of previously developed
land; and finally the development of previously undeveloped land, where it would avoid areas of
important open space, is well located in relation to houses, jobs, other services and infrastructure
and is or can be made accessible by public transport, walking or cycling. RSS Policy UR4 adds to
these objectives stating that:
”
…
…
The redevelopment and re-use of vacant sites and buildings within urban
areas should be a priority [and that] additional development should be
encouraged to make best use of such sites in sustainable locations
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Policy DP1 of Draft RSS also encourages the effective use of land, buildings and infrastructure and
advocates the sequential approach to meeting development needs, as outlined in Adopted RSS
Policy DP1.
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3), provides a definition of previously development
land:
“
Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent
structure including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated
”
fixed surface infrastructure
The re-use of the existing building is not considered viable due to its poor state of repair.
Conversion to residential use would also result in unacceptably low densities given the size of the
plot. Nonetheless, the principle of development on the site is considered appropriate and performs
well against UDP Policy ST11 given the predominance of residential uses in the surrounding area
and that fact that the site is within walking distance of key public transport infrastructure, including
Eccles Railway Station, Eccles Transport Interchange (Metrolink and numerous Bus Services) and
the Eccles Old Road Quality Bus Corridor, together with the facilities and services provided by
Eccles Town Centre.
Given the fact that the proposal involves the development of previously developed land in a
sustainable location, the redevelopment of the site is supported in principle insofar as it would
accord with the sequential approach to development as set out in PPS1, PPS3, Policy DP1 of RSS
and UDP Policies ST11 and H2 and Policy DP1 of the Draft RSS.
Principle of Proposed Uses
”
“
UDP Policy H2 seeks to ensure that an adequate supply of new housing is provided across the City
in accordance with targets set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy. In response, the policy seeks to
restrict housing development in areas where there is evidence of an unacceptable actual or
potential oversupply of housing .
Draft RSS Policy L4 increases the City’s annual rate of housing provision to 1,600 dwellings per
annum, a threefold increase from current provision set out in RSS Policy UR7 at 530 dwellings per
annum.
The applicants have stated that the continued use of the existing building as a Masonic Hall is not
viable due to its poor state of repair and the scale of the costs associated with returning it to
acceptable modern standards. They go on to state that developing part of the site for housing is the
only way to secure the development of replacement facilities.
As a Masonic Hall is a lawful, established use on the site, the provision of a replacement facility is
not in question however, the introduction of housing onto the site is subject to the requirements of
UDP Policy H2.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
At the current time there is no clear evidence of an oversupply of housing in this area. In addition,
evidence at the national, regional and level suggests that household growth is likely to continue,
and as a result Draft RSS Policy L4 seeks to significantly increase the City’s annual housing target.
The provision of 42 housing units on the application site is therefore considered to be in full
accordance with UDP Policy H2.
Density
UDP Policy ST12 states that development within the regional centre, town centres, and close to key
public transport routes and interchanges will be required to achieve a high density appropriate to
the location and context.
UDP Policy H1 states that new housing development should be built at appropriate densities which
will be no less than 30 dwellings per hectare throughout the City and no less than 50 dwellings per
hectare on sites within or adjoining designated mixed use areas, town and neighbourhood centres
and major transport nodes along good quality public transport corridors. It goes on to state that
these standards may be varied, having regard to other criteria listed in the policy.
…
“
The proposed development creates a density of 70 dwellings per hectare. Whilst more than double
the minimum citywide requirement, the proposed density is considered acceptable given the site’s
sustainable location, particularly in respect of its proximity to Eccles Town Centre and its
associated rail, bus and Metrolink facilities. This suitability is reflected in the higher densities of
numerous developments nearby such as Oak Mount directly opposite the site at 100 dwellings per
hectare. The flexible and responsive approach to housing densities set out in UDP Policy H1 is
further endorsed in national planning policy. The recently published Planning Policy Statement 3 –
Housing (PPS3) states that higher densities:
”
when well designed and built in the right location can enhance the
character and quality of an area. Successful intensification need not mean
high rise development or low quality accommodation with inappropriate
space. Similarly, in Conservation Areas and other local areas of special
character where, if proper attention is paid to achieving good design, new
development opportunities can be taken without adverse impacts on their
character and appearance
Although the density proposed is higher than average in this part of the City, I am satisfied that a
high quality design solution has been found that successfully integrates the development into its
surroundings, in accordance with the policies contained within the Ellesmere Park SPD that seek to
protect the special character of the area (see below). On that basis, and given the site’s sustainable
location, I consider the proposed density to be in accordance with UDP Policies ST12 and H1 and
therefore have no objection in principle to the application in this regard.
Housing Type and Size
UDP Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size and type.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Planning Guidance for Housing has replaced the draft Housing Supplementary Planning Document
(SPD) and was recently adopted by the Council. Whilst the guidance does not form part of the
Local Development Framework, it is a material consideration in the determination of planning
applications and specifically supplements UDP Policy H1. The guidance seeks to secure a
sustainable mix of dwelling to meet housing need and contains a number of specific policies
discussed in turn below:
Policy HOU1 - Type of New Dwellings
This policy states that the large majority of new dwellings in this part of the City should be in the
form of houses rather than apartments to reflect the general character of the area and the generally
lower levels of accessibility compared to other parts of the City. The policy goes on to allow
alternative approaches on individual sites where there are specific circumstances that justify this
and advocates apartments as the most appropriate form of new housing in the City’s defined Town
and Neighbourhood Centres to help maximise the number of people who have excellent access to
local facilities.
Given the fact that all the proposed dwellings are in the form of apartments, the proposals would
only accord with this policy if exceptional circumstances were shown to exist that justify taking an
alternative approach. Paragraph 4.14 recognises that there will be individual sites where particular
circumstances indicate deviating from the aforementioned approach and lists a number of examples
where this may be the case including the urban design context, the physical characteristics of the
site, high levels of public transport accessibility and the overall provision of a broad range of
dwelling types.
In this case, it is considered that exceptional circumstances exist that justify accepting the
development of apartments on the site. The reasons for reaching this recommendation are as
follows:
One of the two main reasons for this policy is to reflect the generally lower levels of
accessibility compared with other parts of the City. The site is highly accessible in terms of
its proximity to both public transport infrastructure and local facilities being within easy
walking distance of Eccles Town Centre (approximately 400 metres to the south) and its
associated railway station, Metrolink and Bus Transport Interchange and the Eccles Old
Road Quality Bus Corridor. In addition, Half Edge Lane itself is also served by two bus
services (No.s 19 and 22). This high degree of accessibility is comparable and in some
instances preferable to many areas of the Regional Centre where apartments are identified
as being the most appropriate form of housing provision.
The second reason for this policy approach is to protect the existing character of more
suburban areas. In this instance, following lengthy negotiations with council officers over
the past couple of years, the proposed development is considered to be a high quality
design solution that positively responds to its setting and context ensuring the character of
this part of Ellesmere Park is protected (see below). Indeed, larger buildings, many of
which have been developed as or converted into apartments, are an established feature in
this part of Ellesmere Park, including the residential buildings immediately to the south and
north of the application site.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
The provision of 42 apartments on the site is a form of enabling development needed to
fund the provision of a new, purpose built Masonic Hall. The provision of houses on the
site would inevitably result in far lower densities rendering the scheme unviable. The
applicant has submitted a financial appraisal to substantiate their claims that has been
reviewed by the Council’s consultant surveyors who confirmed that the proposals, though
profitable, provide a significantly lower return than would normally be expected. These
findings should be understood in the context that the Masonic Lodge would not develop the
site themselves, rather an independent developer would develop the site and in return the
Masonic Lodge would receive the replacement Hall.
The proposed development includes a broad mix of dwelling sizes. Of the proposed 42
apartments, 3 would have three bedrooms (7%), 32 would have two bedrooms (76%), 7
would have one bedroom (17%) and 29 would have a gross internal floorspace over 57
square metres (69%). All of the proposed units would have a private terrace or balcony.
As discussed above, officers have been in lengthy discussions with the applicant over the
past couple of years to identify an appropriate solution to the future development of the site
long before the publication of the initial Draft Housing SPD document. The proposals
were therefore substantially developed, following the advice of officers, long before the
adoption of this guidance on 20th December 2006. The application itself was received on
the 3rd October 2006.
For the reasons stated above, I consider there to be exceptional circumstances associated with this
application that justify an alternative approach to that set out in Policy HOU1 of the Housing
Planning Guidance and therefore consider the proposed development of 42 apartments in this
location acceptable in this case.
Policy HOU2 – Size of New Dwellings
This policy states that where apartments are proposed they should provide a broad mix of dwelling
sizes in terms of the number of bedrooms and their net residential floorspace. It goes on to state that
small dwellings should not predominate and a significant proportion of three bedroom apartments
should be provided wherever practicable.
The proposed housing mix is considered to satisfy these policy requirements in that balanced mix
of apartments have been provided. Of the 42 apartments, 3 would have three bedrooms (7%), 32
would have two bedrooms (76%), 7 would have one bedroom (17%) and 29 would have a gross
internal floorspace over 57 square metres (69%). All of the proposed units would have a private
terrace or balcony.
Given exceptional circumstances exist that justify an alternative approach to housing type, I
consider the requirements of UDP Policy H1 and the Housing Planning Guidance to have been met
in relation to housing type and size and I therefore have no objection to the proposal in this regard.
Affordable Housing
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
UDP Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of tenure and affordability.
UDP Policy H4 states that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet
local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the Council, to provide affordable
housing, of appropriate types, on all residential sites over 1 hectare or in housing developments of
more than 25 dwellings.
Policy HOU3 of the Councils Housing Planning Guidance supplements UDP Policy H4 by stating
that on all residential sites over 1 hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings, or in housing
developments of 25 or more dwellings, 20% of the dwellings should be in the form of affordable
housing. A lower proportion of affordable housing may be permitted where material
considerations indicate that this would be appropriate. Exceptional circumstances include where
there are exceptional costs associated with the development or where the scheme was substantially
developed before the adoption of the Guidance on 20 December 2006.
In this case both of the exceptions cited above apply.
Firstly, the proposed development is a form of enabling development in that the provision of 42
apartments on the site is needed to fund the provision of a new, purpose built Masonic Hall, that is
in itself an exceptional cost associated with the development. Similarly, the development of a high
quality, bespoke residential building and the provision of a large area of undercroft car parking to
ensure the character of Ellesmere Park is duly protected also significantly raise costs to a high level
relative to the value of the site. The applicants therefore claim that the requirement for on-site
affordable housing provision or equivalent commuted sums would render the scheme unviable.
In response to the Guidance and other policy requirements, the applicant submitted a financial
appraisal to substantiate their claims. The appraisal has been reviewed by the Council’s consultant
surveyors who confirmed that the proposals, though profitable, provide a significantly lower return
than would normally and reasonably be expected. These findings should be understood in the
context that the Masonic Lodge would not develop the site themselves, rather an independent
developer would develop the site and in return the Masonic Lodge would receive the replacement
Hall. I am therefore satisfied that the introduction of an affordable requirement would render the
scheme unviable and the applicant’s claims are accurate.
Secondly, as already discussed, officers have been engaged in a lengthy period of negotiation with
the applicants in an attempt to identify an acceptable approach to the redevelopment of the site and
this application represents the culmination of those efforts. Negotiations were well advanced prior
to the publication of the Draft Housing SPD and proceeded on the basis that affordable housing
provision would not be required and the proposals were developed on that basis. Following the
withdrawal of a previous scheme, the application was resubmitted on 3rd October 2006; over two
months prior to the adoption of the Housing Planning Guidance on 20th December 2006. I therefore
consider that the scheme, having the benefit of substantial pre-application discussion and
amendment, was ‘substantially developed’ before the adoption of the guidance.
In conclusion, it is considered that the scheme would be rendered unviable if affordable housing
provision were required and that the proposals were substantially developed before the adoption of
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
the guidance. I therefore do not consider it appropriate to secure an element of affordable housing
in this case and therefore have no objection to the application in this regard.
Design, Scale and Massing
UDP Policy H1 states that new housing development should create a high quality residential
environment and be consistent with other UDP policies.
UDP 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.
UDP Policy DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to be fully accessible to all
people, maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists to, through and around the site, enable
pedestrians to navigate their way through an area by providing appropriate views, vistas and
transport links, enable safe, direct and convenient access to public transport facilities and other
local amenities and minimise potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
UDP Policy DES4 outlines that development which adjoins public space shall be designed to have
a strong and positive relationship with that space. In particular buildings should clearly define the
space around them, including streets through the continuity of street frontages and building lines
for example and the visual impact of car parking should be minimised.
UDP Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. Development
which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments will not normally be permitted.
Although not within the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area, the application site falls within Sub
Area 3 of the recently adopted Ellesmere Park SPD. This document defines the special character of
the area and stresses the importance of particular features such as trees on street frontages, front
gardens and brick and stone front boundary walls. The following policies are considered to be of
particular relevance:
Policy EP5 – Layout and Scale of New Developments states that development should retain the
spacious character of the area in term of the scale, massing and site coverage of buildings, the
spacing of buildings to retain visual breaks and the creation and retention of amenity space around
buildings. It goes on to stress the need to reflect the typical layout of existing plots in terms of
retaining a strong building line set well behind boundary walls and front garden areas and ensure
building heights are consistent with surrounding developments.
Policy EP6 – Building Details and Materials states that building elevations should incorporate
design details to avoid featureless elevations. The use of traditional Victorian building materials
and the need to incorporate building design details that characterise the area including red brick,
stone detailing and substantial brick and stone boundary walls.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Policy EP7 – Highways, Boundaries and Front Gardens states that the treatment of highways,
boundaries and front gardens within new developments should follow the typical pattern of
development. In this area (sub-area 3), this consists of, working from the road to the building,
pavement, substantial brick or stone wall with stone cappings, trees or shrubbery planted directly
behind the wall and then front gardens up to the building line.
Policy EP8 – Provision of Private Amenity Space states that apartment developments should
provide useable private communal gardens on the basis of 18 square metres for the first two
apartments, plus 5 square metres for each additional apartment.
Policy EP9 – Car Parking, Cycle Parking and Servicing states underground car parking should be
investigated for new built apartment developments and that surface car parking should be located at
the side or rear of new developments.
Policy EP10 – Trees and Landscaping states that existing mature trees and landscaping should be
retained where practicable and that new trees should be provided directly behind boundary walls
fronting the highway where there are existing gaps in provision.
Policy EP11 – Bin Storage states that sufficient space should be provided in all developments to
accommodate recycling and domestic waste bin storage in a visually unobtrusive location.
Despite receiving numerous objections from local residents on design grounds, I consider the
design of the proposed development to be a high quality, bespoke design solution that successfully
respects and protects the character and appearance of Ellesmere Park, despite the relatively high
density proposed. The application has been the subject of extensive pre-application discussions
and negotiations with officers to address the shortcomings and fundamental flaws in previous
applications and the views of local residents were sought at a public consultation event arranged by
the applicant. I therefore have no objection in principle to the development on design grounds,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
I will deal with each element of the proposed design, in turn below.
Layout
Currently, the proportion of the site occupied by the existing Masonic Hall is relatively low and
given its central position, set well back from the established building line, and the high degree of
enclosure provided by the high brick boundary wall and line of protected, mature trees along the
Half Edge Lane frontage, the visual relationship between the existing building and the street is
uncharacteristically weak.
The proposed layout of the development addresses this irregular visual break in the streetscene by
ensuring the front elevation of the apartment building is aligned with and strengthens the
established building line on Half Edge Lane whilst at the same time ensuring the existing brick wall
(albeit partially lowered to accommodate adequate visibility splays), mature tree-lined boundary
and front garden area are retained, in full accordance with Policies EP5, EP7, EP10 of the
Ellesmere Park SPD and UDP Policies DES1 and DES4.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Similarly, despite the higher density and site coverage, the position of buildings on the site remain
in a central position, to retain visual breaks between the proposed buildings and surrounding
properties, ensuring extensive areas of soft landscaping and the protected boundary trees are
retained. This ensures the character and appearance of Ellesmere Park is protected and the amenity
of neighbouring properties is safeguarded in full accordance with the City Council’s adopted aspect
distances. Indeed, despite the proposed density and amount of built form, the proportion of soft
landscaped area would remain at a similar level to the existing layout due to the provision of
undercroft car parking allowing for the creation of private outdoor amenity space above in the form
of a courtyard garden between the two buildings. This ensures the minimum amount of private
amenity space required by Policy EP8 of the Ellesmere Park SPD is far exceeded insofar as 236sqm
is required and over 1000 square metres is proposed.
The provision of extensive undercroft car parking ensures the visual impact of parking is minimised
in accordance with Policy EP9 of the Ellesmere Park SPD and effectively removes the sea of
surface car parking that currently visually dominates the site.
The visual impact of bin storage would be effectively minimised through the provision of waste
storage areas in the undercroft parking area. On collection days, bins would be transferred to
secured and well-screened refuse collection bay at the side of the apartment building near the
vehicular entrance on Half Edge Lane allowing for easy and efficient collection. This strategy is
considered an acceptable strategy in full accordance with Policy EP11 of the Ellesmere Park SPD.
Scale and Massing
Although the proposed scale and mass of the proposed development is greater than the existing
Masonic Hall and surrounding buildings (with the exception of Eccleshome immediately to the
south) the detailed design, layout and retention of extensive areas of soft landscaping on the
periphery of the site ensure that a positive relationship between the proposed development and
surroundings is maintained and that the character and appearance of Ellesmere Park is protected.
At four storeys, the height of the proposed apartment building is higher than most of the
surrounding buildings, whilst the replacement Masonic Hall at the rear of the site drops down to
two storeys and is considerably lower than the adjacent Eccleshome residential care home. The
roof of the proposed flat block is only 2 metres higher than that of the existing Masonic Lodge and
only slightly exceeds the height of the four-storey building directly adjacent to the application site
on the opposite side of Half Edge Lane. As discussed above, although the height of the proposed
buildings often exceeds the height of neighbouring buildings, particularly in respect of the
bungalow at 44 Half Edge Lane, however I consider the height differential to be adequately offset
by the space between buildings and the screening provided by the dense line of mature, protected
trees along the north, east and western boundaries. Opportunities to further screen the proposed
development will be taken at the reserved matters stage when detailed landscaping proposals are
considered, particularly in respect of the bungalow at 44 Half Edge Lane.
Similarly, the visual impact of the mass and width of the larger apartment building is effectively
mitigated by the screening provided by the dense line of mature, protected trees along the north,
east and western boundaries, a deeply recessed third floor roof level and the boundary wall on the
Half Edge Lane, whilst the mass of proposed replacement Masonic Hall building is similar to that
of the larger Eccleshome building to the south. In addition, the scale and mass of the building on
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
the Half Edge Lane elevation is further softened by the introduction of a deeply recessed glazed
link at the main pedestrian entrance point that effectively splits the building in two to mirror the
characteristic plot widths of other properties on Half Edge Lane.
Given the above, I consider the scale and mass of the proposed building to be acceptable and in
accordance with UDP Policies H1, DES1 and DES7 and Policy EP5 of the Ellesmere Park SPD.
External Appearance and Materials
The proposed buildings are bespoke and have a distinctively modern design. Despite having a
contrasting architectural style to the mixture of Edwardian, 1930’s, 1960’s and 1970’s two and
three storey detached, semi-detached and terraced houses surrounding the site, I consider the
appearance of the proposed building to be a high quality, modern, yet discreet intervention that
would add visual and architectural interest to the street scene.
The apartment block fronting Half Edge Lane presents itself as two blocks widely separated from
one another by a deeply recessed, full height glass link designed to reflect the boundary trees and
sky when seen from Half Edge Lane. The retention of the brick front boundary wall and mature
boundary trees greatly softens the visual impact of the development helps ensure it blends in to the
streetscape. The skyline is fragmented by a deeply modelled and recessed top floor.
Despite being a distinctively modern design, the detailing, elevational treatment and palette of
materials chosen make reference to the traditional Victorian vernacular that characterises the area,
in accordance with Policy EP6 of the Ellesmere Park SPD. The two dominant facing materials are
brick and artstone that are carried through to both buildings to ensure strong architectural
continuity. Both buildings share a similarly scaled stone box feature defining principal windows in
the case of the Hall and living room windows and balconies in the case of the residential block. The
artstone throughout the scheme is of a Portland Stone colour with a sepia mortar whilst the facing
brickwork is an antique Victorian red with anthracite mortar. Above the heavy projecting cornice,
the discrete, deeply recessed upper floor would be clad in grey coloured panels that make reference
to the predominance of natural slate roofs, notable on the better quality buildings in Ellesmere Park.
All window frames, doors and balcony fronts would be dark grey, powder-coated steel and glazing
would be generally clear. Where glazing is required to be obscure, either for certain windows or
terrace screening, translucent glass blocks are proposed. The columns and projecting eaves are to
be pre-fabricated in GRP and coloured to match the artstone features. Externally, the roadway
would be finished in block paviors to match the general tone of the facing brickwork whilst the
pedestrian ramp giving access to the residential building on the Half Edge Lane frontage would be
a timber structure set informally within the swathe of boundary trees.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, I am satisfied the external appearance of the
proposed development would be modern yet high quality and sympathetic addition to the area
adding quality and value to the built environment in accordance with UDP Policies H1, DES1 and
DES 4 and Policies EP5 and EP6 of the Ellesmere Park SPD.
As well as specifying the proposed materials in the Design and Access and on plans, the applicant
has submitted samples of proposed materials for approval. Although broadly satisfied, I remain of
the opinion that in some instances, the colour of the proposed materials should be revised to
improve consistency with the materials that make an important contribution to Ellesmere Park’s
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
character, particularly in respect of the colour of the proposed brick type and panels at third floor
level. I therefore recommend that a condition be attached to any consent requiring the submission
and written approval of materials, notwithstanding the approved plans.
I have a letter from the occupier of the bungalow at 44 Half Edge Lane objecting to the featureless
blank, side elevation of the residential building facing their property. Although this elevation is
blank to safeguard their privacy and prevent overlooking, I agree with their assertion that the blank
gable adversely affects their outlook and has a negative townscape impact. I therefore recommend
that a condition be attached to any consent requiring the partial redesign of the gable to ‘break-up’
its’ mass and soften its visual impact by introducing detail without compromising the privacy of the
residents of 44 Half Edge Lane.
I also recommend that a condition be attached to any consent requiring the submission and written
approval of details of the rooftop ventilation shafts, recessed window openings, the glazed-link on
the Half Edge Lane frontage, balcony balustrades and railings, balcony privacy screen walls and the
undercroft car park roller shutter doors.
Amenity
UDP Policy H1 states that new housing development should provide a high quality residential
environment and an adequate level of amenity and be consistent with other UDP policies.
UDP 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.
UDP Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute
towards a significant increase in pollution to the air, water or soil, or by reason of noise, odour,
artificial light or vibration, will not be permitted unless they include mitigation measures
commensurate with the scale and impact of the development.
Privacy and Overlooking
The proposed development has been designed in full accordance with Council’s separation
distances. The dense line of mature, protected, boundary trees further mitigates the impact of the
development in privacy terms. In addition, balconies and verandas either face into the site or face
the trees on the northern boundary and have privacy screens. Private outdoor amenity space is
limited to terraces at ground floor level on the eastern elevation facing Preston Avenue. Despite the
objections received, I therefore have no objection to the application in this regard.
Loss of Sunlight and Daylight
Given the position and orientation of the building in relation to neighbouring properties and the
presence of the dense line of mature protected trees along the boundary I am satisfied that the
proposed development would not result in an undue loss of daylight and sunlight entering the
habitable room windows of neighbouring properties. Despite the objections received, I therefore
have no objection to the application in this regard.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Light pollution
I have received an objection from the residents of 61 Preston Avenue on the grounds that due to the
layout of access roads, headlights from cars visiting the site would create light pollution in their
home. Having revisited the plans on receiving the objection I find no reason why that would be the
case given the distance and relationship between their property and the nearest access road. I
therefore consider the objection unsustainable. Details of external lighting will be assessed in
detail at the reserved matters stage when landscaping proposals are considered.
TV Reception
I have received objections on the grounds that the proposed development would unduly affect TV
reception received at neighbouring properties. Given the physical relationship between the
proposed development and neighbouring properties I consider it appropriate and necessary to
attach a condition to any consent requiring the submission, written approval and implementation of
an appropriate survey detailing what, if any, measures are required to ensure TV Reception is not
unduly affected in accordance with PPG8 – Telecommunications.
Impact of Construction Phase
Due to the proximity of residential properties, I consider it necessary to attach a condition requiring
the submission, written approval and implementation of a site operating scheme. The Director of
Environmental Services has requested that hours of construction works be limited to 08:00 am to
18:00 pm Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays and it is recommended that the
condition be imposed to the effect.
Noise
I have received numerous objections regarding problems of noise nuisance particularly in respect
of the Masonic Hall itself.
The applicant submitted a noise assessment in support of the application. The Assessment
concludes that:
noise insulation of the building envelope is required;
a recommendation has been made for external noise criteria to be used for the control of
noise from the substation and external mechanical and electrical equipment, both for the
residential development and the Masonic Hall;
the increase in noise generated by road traffic entering and leaving the site would be
imperceptible, particularly given the majority of car parking would provided underground.
The Director of Environmental Services has reviewed the assessment and has expressed concern
that noise from the new Masonic Hall may impact upon new and existing residents, particularly
during functions involving amplified music, and that other noise sources of concern include plant
and machinery and disturbance during the construction phase. In response, a number of conditions
to control noise nuisance are recommended.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
In relation to noise from the Masonic Hall itself, the applicant indicated on the application form that
they are not seeking to increase existing, lawful hours of operation set out in the terms of their
licence. These are:
11:00 hrs to 23:50 hrs Mondays to Saturdays; and
12:00 hrs to 22:50 hrs Sundays.
The Director of Environmental Services is satisfied that residential amenity will not be adversely
affected by the proposed development subject to the imposition of conditions limiting the
replacement Hall’s hours of operation to the above and a requirement that a noise mitigation
strategy, addressing noise emanating from the Hall, be submitted and approved in writing before
development commences and thereafter implemented in full. It should be noted that the acoustic
insulation offered by the proposed replacement Hall together with its undercroft parking facility are
likely to lead to a significant reduction in the level of noise generated on-site by the use.
In relation to noise from plant and machinery it is recommended a condition be imposed requiring
noise from fixed plant and machinery associated with both buildings be at least 5 dB below the
background level at the faēade of the nearest noise sensitive properties at any time.
In respect of road traffic noise, it recommended that a condition be attached to any consent
requiring acoustic glazing (minimum RW of 33dB) and ventilation systems (minimum DneW of
31dB) be installed to all habitable room windows overlooking Half Edge Lane and confirmed in a
site completion report prior to first occupation.
It is also recommended that a condition be imposed limiting hours of construction (see above).
Subject to the imposition of the conditions detailed above, I have no objection to the application on
noise grounds.
Contaminated Land
Policy EN16 states that development proposals on sites known or thought to be contaminated will
require the submission of a site assessment as part of any planning application, identifying the
nature and extent of the contamination involved, the risk it poses to future users/occupiers of the
site, and the practical remedial measures proposed to deal with the contamination.
Although the site is considered to be low risk in respect of contaminated land, the Director of
Environmental Services requires a minimum of a desktop study to be completed regarding
contamination in relation to this site. I therefore recommend that a condition be imposed
accordingly. I am satisfied that, subject to compliance with the condition, there would be no
unacceptable detrimental impact as a result of the existing ground conditions and I consider that the
application accords with the above policy.
Crime Prevention
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
UDP Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to
discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime. Further detailed policies and
guidance are provided in the adopted Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document.
In accordance, with the Design and Crime SPD, the Greater Manchester Police Architectural
Liaison Officer (ALO) has reviewed the proposals and has raised no objection in principle but
wishes to see private garden areas fenced and gated to ensure visitors are kept to the entrance fronts
of the buildings. Issues relating to the provision of fences and gates within the site will be revisited
in detail at the reserved matters stage when detailed landscaping are submitted for approval. The
ALO’s comments have been relayed to the applicant. I have no objection to the application on
crime prevention grounds at this stage.
Access and Parking Provision
UDP Policy A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans states that planning applications for
developments which would give rise to significant transport implications will not be permitted
unless they are accompanied by a transport assessment and, where appropriate, a travel plan.
UDP Policy A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled requires development proposals to make
adequate provision for safe and convenient access by the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists through
the protection and improvement of key routes.
UDP Policy A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network states that development will
not be permitted where it would compromise highway safety by virtue of traffic generation and
access.
UDP Policy A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle, and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
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.
UDP Policy DES2 – Circulation and Movement requires the design and layout of new development
to be fully accessible to all people, maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists to, through
and around the site, enable pedestrians to navigate their way through an area by providing
appropriate views, vistas and transport links, enable safe, direct and convenient access to public
transport facilities and other local amenities and minimise potential conflicts between pedestrians,
cyclists and other road users.
Vehicular and pedestrian access to both buildings would be via the existing access point on Half
Edge Lane only.
In accordance with UDP Policy A1 the applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment in support
of their application. The assessment concluded that:
the proposed development would not lead to any significant increase in 2 way traffic flows
along Half Edge Lane;
Half Edge Lane is currently operating well below its theoretical design capacity;
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
an analysis of the capacity of the site access with Half Edge Lane has identified no
foreseeable operational difficulties;
there is no history of any accidents associated with the existing site access;
proposed improvements to the site access involving the partial lowering of the boundary
wall on Half Edge Lane and the realignment of the kerb line reducing the carriageway
width will increase visibility and improve highway safety;
the site is in a sustainable location with excellent facilities nearby and numerous frequent
public transport links to surrounding employment areas; and
as such there can be no overriding highways reason for refusal on this site.
Given the above and despite objections received, I am satisfied that the proposals will not give rise
to any significant transport implications or be to the detriment of highway safety in accordance with
UDP Policies A1, A8 and DES2 subject to the imposition of a condition requiring full details of the
proposed alterations to the access on Half Edge Lane to be submitted, approved in writing and
implemented in full prior to first occupation.
As discussed above, undercroft car parking is proposed beneath the proposed buildings allowing
the provision of a total of 105 on site car parking spaces (41 for the residential element, 57 for the
replacement Masonic Hall and seven overflow/visitor car parking spaces, above ground, on the
western boundary). A total of 10 disabled parking bays would be provided together with 9 secure
motorcycle parking spaces and 17 secure cycle parking spaces.
Car parking provision for residential developments is assessed on a case-by case basis. Given the
site is well served by public transport, the provision of 0.98 car parking spaces per dwelling is
considered adequate. Four disabled parking bays (9.8%), one secure bicycle locker for every 4.2
units and seven motorcycle bays are provided in accordance with minimum standards set out in
UDP Policy A10.
UDP Policy A10 specifies maximum car parking standards in relation to the Masonic Hall at one
car parking space for every eight seats with a minimum of three disabled bays or 6% of the total
number of bays, one cycle bay for every 80 seats with a minimum of two spaces and one
motorcycle bay for every 320 seats with a minimum of two spaces. These standards have been
exceeded through the provision of one car parking for every six seats, six disabled bays (equivalent
to 10.34%), one cycle space for every 50 seats and
two motorcycle spaces, equivalent to one
space per 176 seats). The replacement Masonic Hall contains a total of 351 seats and the
application proposes 57 car parking spaces, 6 disabled bays, 7 cycle bays and 2 motorcycle bays.
The number of car parking spaces in relation to the Masonic Hall exceeds the maximum standards
set out in UDP Policy A10, however given the objections received in relation to the adequacy of on
site parking provision particularly when functions are held at the Hall, I consider the additional
provision proposed necessary in order to alleviate on-street parking pressures.
In the supporting Planning Statement, the applicant has provided results of a number of surveys
carried out during 2006 to assess the level of demand for car parking during a number of different
events. The survey concluded that:
an average of 33 cars are parked on the site for Masonic related events;
an average of 24 cars are parked on the site during functions held in the day;
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
an average of 12 cars are parked at the Hall for weddings, parties and or ladies evenings;
and
the majority of people visiting the site for weddings, parties and/or ladies evenings tend to
arrive by taxi.
Nonetheless it is acknowledged that very occasionally, events held at the Hall do generate a
demand for parking that exceeds the level of proposed provision. Although the exception rather
than the norm, given the above, I therefore consider the increased level of parking provided to serve
the needs of replacement Hall to be justified in this case. I therefore have no objection to the level
of proposed parking provision.
As mentioned above, the existing car park is currently used as an overspill car park for Hope
Hospital. I have received an objection on the grounds that the proposed development will lead to
the loss of this facility. I do not consider this to be valid grounds for refusal given such
arrangements are a private matter between the owners of the site and the hospital. Nonetheless,
given the need to ensure sufficient parking provision is made for the future residents and users of
the Hall, I consider it necessary to attach a condition requiring the parking provision proposed to be
made available before the proposed buildings are first used or occupied and thereafter remain
available for the sole use of the future residents and users of the Hall.
In respect of disabled access, both buildings have been designed to be accessible to all without
impediment. Changes in ground level have been addressed through the provision of gently graded
ramps. Generous disabled parking facilities have been provided in the undercroft parking areas
where lifts are provided serving all floors of both buildings. Similarly, within both buildings,
doorways and circulation areas are of sufficient width to accommodate wheelchair users. Fully
accessible WCs are provided on each floor of the proposed Hall whilst all apartments are fully
accessible to disabled people. 17 apartments (40%) have been designed to be compatible with
disabled person’s occupancy. I therefore consider the development to be in full accordance with
UDP Policies A2, A10 and DES2 in this regard.
I have received a written comment from a local resident who has stated that the poor state of the
public footpath on Half Edge Lane makes access for people with disabilities difficult. Given that
the footpath is outside the application site and not in the ownership of the applicant, it is considered
unreasonable to require the applicant to address these problems. Nonetheless, the proposed
alterations to the public footpath at the access point on Half Edge Lane, involving the widening the
pavement may help alleviate these problems.
Open Space Provision
UDP Policy H1 requires new housing development to make adequate provision for open space and
be consistent with other UDP policies.
UDP Policy H8 states that planning permission will only be granted where adequate and
appropriate provision is made for formal and informal open space and its maintenance over a
twenty-year period. Such provision is required either as part of the development or through an
equivalent financial contribution to fund off-site provision. This policy refers to access to
recreational land and facilities standards set out in UDP Policy R2.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
UDP Policy DEV5 states that development that would have an adverse impact on any interests of
acknowledged importance, or would result in a material increase in the need for infrastructure,
services, facilities and/or maintenance, will only be granted planning permission subject to
planning conditions or planning obligations that would ensure adequate mitigation measures are
put in place.
The Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document requires major residential
developments of 10 dwellings or more to contribute towards the provision, improvement and
maintenance of open space and recreation facilities at a level of £540 per bedspace. This figure is
reduced where part of the requirements is made within the development site.
Ellesmere Park SPD Policy EP8 – Provision of Private Amenity Space states that apartment
developments should provide useable private communal gardens on the basis of 18 square metres
for the first two apartments, plus 5 square metres for each additional apartment.
As discussed above, a generous amount of outdoor private amenity space is proposed, far
exceeding the amount of required by Policy EP8 of the Ellesmere Park SPD. I therefore have no
objection to the amount of amenity space provided on site. Detailed landscaping proposals will be
considered at the reserved matters stage.
This application would generate a total of 122 bed spaces generating an open space requirement
equal to:
0.08906ha of high quality managed sports pitches;
0.0305ha of equipped children’s playspace; and
0.0488ha of amenity space and informal open space provision.
Since the proposed development is relatively small (i.e. less than 200 bed spaces) and is located in
an area with a number of existing sites available for improvement such as Ellesmere Park Playing
Fields, a financial contribution to be directed to open space improvements in the locality of the
development is considered the most appropriate form of provision. Contributions are calculated on
the basis of £540 per bedspace for provision detailed above and its maintenance over a 20-year
period. This would result in an open space financial contribution requirement of £64,260.
However, the amount of private amenity space proposed on-site meets the amenity space and
informal open space provision element of the requirement. This reduces the financial contribution
required to £59,658.
The applicant has agreed, in writing, to meet this requirement. I therefore recommend that a
condition be attached to any consent to secure the agreed contribution. As such, I am satisfied that
the application complies with UDP Policies H8 and R2.
Trees & Landscaping
UDP Policy EN13 states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss or damage to
protected trees will not be permitted. Where the loss of trees is considered acceptable, adequate
replacement provision will be required.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Ellesmere Park SPD Policy EP10 – Trees and Landscaping states that existing mature trees and
landscaping should be retained where practicable and that new trees should be provided directly
behind boundary walls fronting the highway where there are existing gaps in provision.
The Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document contains further policies and
guidance in relation to tree protection that includes the requirement to replace trees that are lost on
a two for one basis. Policy TD3 of the document requires a separation distance of 3.6 metres
between any part of a tree and principal habitable room windows.
UDP 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, respect adjacent land uses and wherever
possible make provision for the creation of new wildlife habitats.
This application is in outline, with landscaping made a reserved matter for detailed consideration at
a later date. Nonetheless the applicant has submitted a Tree Survey and an indicative landscaping
plan in support of the application.
The proposals require the removal of 14 trees. Many of the trees on site are protected by Tree
Preservation Order (TPO) 14, which consists of 5 groups (G1 to G5). These groups are located
around the boundaries of the site. Group 1 borders the northern and eastern boundaries and
includes 47 trees of varying species; Group 2 is located along the eastern boundary and consists of
2 Sycamore trees; Group 5 is located along the western boundary and consists of 11 trees of various
broadleaved species. Groups 3 and 4 are not within the boundary of the site and therefore remain
unaffected by the proposal.
Six of the fourteen trees to be felled are covered by the TPO, and of those six, five are considered to
be in a poor condition. The Tree Survey has been reviewed by the Council’s consultant
arboriculturalist who considers the proposals acceptable. Detailed matters relating to tree
protection during construction, pruning works required to ensure minimum distances between
habitable rooms windows and trees on the northern boundary of the site are met and the provision
of replacement trees on a two-for-one basis will be considered in detail at the reserved matters stage
when detailed landscaping proposals are submitted.
I do not consider that objections received in respect of the proposed loss or potential damage to
trees and the associated loss of visual amenity can be sustained given landscaping proposals will be
considered at the reserved matters stage, whereupon the applicant will be required to demonstrate
how replacement trees have been sited to address any loss of enclosure, screening or visual amenity
and adequately protected during construction.
I therefore have no objection to the application in this regard on the basis that detailed proposals
will be considered at the reserved matters stage.
Ecology
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
UDP Policy E10 states that development that would be likely to have an adverse impact on legally
protected species will only be permitted where mitigation measures are put in place to maintain the
population level of the species at a favourable conservation status within its natural range.
Further detailed policies and guidance are provided in the adopted Nature Conservation and
Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document, including Policy NCB1 – Maintaining and
Enhancing Biodiversity that states that development proposals should seek to maintain and enhance
biodiversity and the nature conservation interest of sites.
…
…
…
…
“
A Bat and Ecological Survey was submitted in support of the application that has been reviewed by
the Greater Manchester Ecological Unit (GMEU). They found that despite being carried out by a
suitably qualified surveyor, the bat survey was not comprehensive in scope due the time of year the
survey was carried out and the fact that the roof space and cellar were not fully inspected.
Nonetheless, the surveyor concluded, there are a multitude of potential roosting places for the
pipistrelle bat associated with the exterior of the building [and that] the likelihood of some use
[of the building] is fairly high’. The survey also highlighted that two bat species have been
recorded in the area and on the development site itself.
All species of bats and their roost sites are specially protected and on that basis GMEU have
recommended that further survey work for bats be required, and if found, appropriate mitigation
measures be agreed in writing before development commences and subsequently implemented in
full. In addition, as all nesting birds, their eggs and their young are legally protected, GMEU
recommended that any vegetation of tree removal required be carried out outside the optimum
bird-nesting season (March to July inclusive) unless nesting birds have been shown to be absent. I
agree with their findings and recommend that conditions be imposed accordingly. Subject to the
above I have no objection to the application on ecological grounds.
Loss of Recreational Land
UDP Policy R1 states that the development of all existing recreation land or facilities will not be
permitted unless the development if for recreation purposes that would contribute to the continued
recreation use of the site, adequate replacement recreation provision is made in alternative suitable
location, it has been clearly demonstrated that the site is surplus to recreational requirements and
the development would facilitate the wider regeneration of the local area or the development is
ancillary to the principal use of the site.
UDP Policy DEV5 states that development that would have an adverse impact on any interests of
acknowledged importance, or would result in a material increase in the need for infrastructure,
services, facilities and/or maintenance, will only be granted planning permission subject to
planning conditions or planning obligations that would ensure adequate mitigation measures are
put in place.
Policy GS13 of Salford’s Greenspace Strategy Supplementary Planning Document states where the
benefits of development clearly outweigh the loss of a recreational facility, the redevelopment of
that facility will only be permitted where the development would make a contribution to the
provision or improvement of recreational facilities equivalent to the facility that is to be lost.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
As mentioned above, the proposals involve the loss of the bowling green at the southern end of the
site. Although the green is in private ownership, in a poor state of repair and has not been used for
sometime, its loss is nonetheless contrary to UDP Policy R1 and the provisions of the Greenspace
Strategy unless adequate replacement provision of an equivalent or better quality is made
elsewhere.
The cost of a replacement bowling green of an equivalent quality in an alternative location has been
estimated at £90,000. This will meet the cost of constructing a 900 square metre bowling green,
security fencing, surrounding paths, seats and bins. These funds could be used to improve existing
youth and adult facilities within the area (for example at Ellesmere Park Playing Fields), to create a
new facility (for example at Duke Drive/Monton Green or Campbell Green Playing Fields), or to
improve the associated facilities for the existing bowling green in Eccles Recreation Ground.
The applicant has agreed, in writing, to meet this requirement by making a financial contribution of
£90,000 to offset the loss of the bowling green, in addition to the sum relating to off-site open space
provision (see above). I therefore recommend that a condition be attached to any consent to secure
the agreed contribution. As such, I am satisfied that the application complies with UDP Policies R1
and Policy GS13 of Salford’s Greenspace Strategy.
Sustainable Construction and Environmental Performance
UDP Policy ST14 requires all major development proposals to demonstrate how they will minimise
greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on the global environment.
RSS Policy ER13 requires local planning authorities to ensure that development minimises energy
use and positively encourage the use of energy efficient technologies and energy from renewable
sources in major new developments.
Draft RSS Policy DP1 requires development proposals and schemes to demonstrate excellent
design quality, sustainable construction and efficiency in resource use.
Draft RSS Policy EM16 requires local planning authorities to promote the implementation of
energy conservation measures and efficiency of design, layout, location and use of materials and
natural resources in new buildings and refurbishment schemes.
Draft RSS Policy EM17 requires plans and strategies to encourage the use of smaller scale on-site
renewable energy projects. All major development proposals and schemes for new non-residential
developments above a threshold of 1000 square metres and all new residential developments
comprising 10 or more units, should incorporate renewable energy production to provide at least
10% of the development’s predicted energy requirements.
The applicant’s have confirmed that they are seeking to achieve a ‘very good’ BREEAM rating (the
comprehensive, industry standard, Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment
Methodology). I am therefore satisfied that the above policy requirements will ultimately be met
and that an environmentally responsible, sustainable, resource efficient building will be delivered.
I recommended that a condition be imposed accordingly to secure such a positive outcome.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Other Issues
I have received an objection in respect of the accuracy of the submitted plans in relation the site’s
boundary with 44 Half Edge Lane. Following receipt of the objection, the site location plan was
amended accordingly and the public consultation procedure restarted.
I have received a written objection on the basis that the proposed development will exceed the
area’s drainage capacity. Both The Environment Agency and United Utilities were consulted as
part of the application and neither raised any objections. On that basis, I consider the objection
unsustainable.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has agreed to make financial contributions to offset the loss of the bowling green on
site and fund the provision of outdoor recreation space and facilities in the area amounting to
£149,658 in accordance with UDP Policies H8 and R1.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the scheme accords with the policies of the Development Plan and
associated Supplementary Planning Documents. I do not consider that there are any other material
planning considerations that outweigh this finding. Subject to the imposition of the following
conditions, including the requirement to enter into a legal agreement, I recommend that the
application be approved accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of three
years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later
than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case
of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
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:
- Landscaping.
3. Notwithstanding the approved plans, development shall not commence unless and until
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
samples of the materials to be used on all external elevations, including the roof, of the
development have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
development shall be constructed using only the approved materials unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the local planning authority.
4. Notwithstanding the approved plans, the side elevation of the residential building facing 44
Half Edge Lane is not approved. Revised details of the external appearance of the side
elevation, and any related alterations to floor plans shall be submitted and approved in writing
by the local planning authority before the development of the residential building commences.
The residential building shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved revised
details.
The revised details shall address the lack of detail on the elevation and soften its visual impact
without compromising the privacy of the residents of 44 Half Edge Lane.
5. Notwithstanding the approved plans, development of the residential building shall not
commence until details of the following elements of the building have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority:
- detailed drawings of the rooftop ventilation shafts;
- detailed elevations at 1:50 scale and sections at 1:20 scale of the window and door openings;
- detailed elevations at 1:50 scale and sections at 1:20 scale of the glazed link on the north
elevation to Half Edge Lane;
- detailed elevations at 1:50 scale and sections at 1:20 scale of all balcony balustrades, railings
and privacy screen walls; and
- detailed elevations at 1:50 scale and sections at 1:20 scale of the car park roller shutter doors.
The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
6. The applicant shall, with regard to television reception in the area, provide the local planning
authority with studies that:
a) Identify, before the development commences, the potential impact area in which television
reception is likely to be adversely affected by the development. The study shall be carried out
either by the Office of Communications (Ofcom), or by a body approved by Ofcom and shall
include an assessment of when in the construction process an impact on television reception
might occur.
b) Measure the existing television signal reception within the potential impact area identified
in (a) above before development commences. The work shall be undertaken either by an aerial
installer registered with the Confederation of Aerial Industries or by a body approved by the
Office of Communications, and shall include an assessment of the survey results obtained.
c) Assess the impact of the development on television signal reception within the potential
impact area identified in (a) above within one month of the practical completion of the
development or before the development is first occupied, whichever is the sooner, and at any
other time during the construction of the development if requested in writing by the local
planning authority in response to identified television signal reception problems within the
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
potential impact area. The study shall identify such measures necessary to maintain at least the
pre-existing level and quality of signal reception identified in the survey carried out in (b)
above. The measures identified must be carried out either before the building is first occupied
or within one month of the study being submitted to the local planning authority, whichever is
the earlier.
7. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation to
provision of delivery of materials, the delivery and collection of equipment, provision and use
of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's' vehicles, wheel washing facilities and
street sweeping and no development or activities related or incidental thereto shall take place
on the site in contravention of such site operating statement.
8. The building works required to implement this development that are audible at the site
boundary shall only be carried out between the hours of: - 08:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs Mondays to Fridays; and
- 08:00 hrs to 13:00 hrs Saturdays; and
- not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
9. Unless otherwise agreed in advance and in writing by the local planning authority, the use of
the replacement Masonic Hall hereby approved, shall be limited to the following hours:
- 09:00 hrs to 23:50 hrs Mondays to Saturdays; and
- 10:00 hrs to 22:50 hrs Sundays.
10. Before development commences, a noise mitigation scheme that specifies the provision to be
made for the control of noise emanating from the replacement Masonic Hall shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented in full prior to the first use of the replacement Masonic Hall and any measures
implemented shall be maintained in full thereafter.
11. The rating level (LAeq) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the development,
when operating simultaneously, shall be 5 dB below the background noise level (L90) at all
times when measured at the facade of the nearest noise sensitive premises. Noise
measurements and assessments shall be carried out according to BS4142; 1997
12. The residential building hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until the developer
has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the local planning authority, that glazing with a
minimum RW of 33dB and ventilation systems with a minimum DneW of 31 dB have been
installed to all habitable rooms overlooking Half Edge Lane.
13. Before development commences, a desk study shall be undertaken and agreed by the local
planning authority to investigate and produce an assessment of the risk of the potential for
on-site gas and contamination. If the desk study identifies potential contamination a detailed
site investigation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority
before development commences.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Any site 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, where appropriate,
shall include a risk assessment and an options appraisal including a 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 and first occupation or use of development hereby approved, a Site
Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing.
The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site in respect to the
relevant phase were completed in accordance with those agreed by the local planning authority.
14. Notwithstanding the approved plans, development shall not commence until details of the
alterations to the pedestrian and vehicular access point on Half Edge Lane have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall not be
occupied until the works have been completed in accordance with the approved details.
15. The parking indicated on the approved plans shall be surfaced, demarcated and made available
for use prior to first occupation or first use of the buildings hereby approved. The car parking
shall thereafter remain available at all times solely for use by the residents and users of the
replacement Hall.
16. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning
Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that
commuted sums as required by Policies H8 and R1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan, having regard to the standards and requirements set out in Policy R2 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan and Salford's Greenspace Strategy, will be paid to the Local
Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes.
17. Notwithstanding the findings of the Bat and Ecological Survey submitted, development shall
not commence until the existing building has been comprehensively surveyed for evidence of
use by bats and the results of this survey have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. If bats are found to inhabit the building, no development shall
commence until a scheme for the conservation of this species has been agreed with the local
planning authority.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
18. No site clearance works shall take place during the bird nesting season (March to July
inclusive) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
19. The development hereby approved shall acheive a post-construction Building Research
Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating, or equivalent, of 'very
good' or 'excellent', unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. A
post-construction review certificate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority before any of the buildings hereby approved are first occupied, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason(s)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 (as amended).
2. Reason: The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the
applicant for subsequent approval.
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity, appearance and character of the area in accordance with
Policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy EP6 of the Ellesmere
Park Supplementary Planning Document.
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity, appearance and character of the area in accordance with
Policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy EP6 of the Ellesmere
Park Supplementary Planning Document.
5. Reason: To safeguard the amenity, appearance and character of the area in accordance with
Policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy EP6 of the Ellesmere
Park Supplementary Planning Document.
6. Reason - To provide an indication of the area of television signal reception likely to be affected
by the development to provide a basis on which to assess the extent to which the development
during construction and once built, will affect television reception and to ensure that the
development at least maintains the existing level and quality of television signal reception. This
is in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications and Policy
DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents and in the interests of highway
safety. This is in accordance with Policies DES7, A8 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
8. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of local residents. This is in accordance with Policy EN17
of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
9. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of local residents. This is in accordance with Policy EN17
of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
10. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of local residents. This is in accordance with Policy EN17
of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of local residents. This is in accordance with Policy EN17
of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
12. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance
with Policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
13. Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with Policy EN16 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
14. Reason: To ensure that satisfactory access is provided from the public highway to the proposed
development in the interests of highway safety. This is in accordance with Policies DES2 and
A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
15. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of vehicles within the
curtilage of the site in accordance with Policy A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
16. Reason: To ensure the residential development provides adequate open space and recreation
space for future occupiers in accordance with policies H8 and R2 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and that the loss of the bowling green on the site is adequately offset
through the provision of adequate replacement facilities elsewhere in the City in accordance
with Policy R1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy GS13 of Salford's
Greenspace Strategy.
17. Reason: To protect bats and their roost sites that are protected species under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981. This is in accordance with Policy EN10 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan 2004-2016.
18. Reason: To protect nesting birds and their nesting sites that are protected under the Wildlife
and Countryside Act 1981. This is in accordance with Policy EN10 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
19. Reason: In the interests of resource conservation and environmental sustainability. This is in
accordance with Policy ST14 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016,
Policy ER13 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and Policies DP1, EM16 and EM17 of the Draft
Regional Spatial Strategy.
Note(s) for Applicant
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
1. For the avoidance of doubt, this permission relates to the following approved plans:
Existing Site Location, Layout and Site Dimensions (Drawing Ref: A04-25/P03-001/A)
Area Summary (Drawing Ref: A04-25/P03-008)
Site and Landscaping Plan (Drawing Ref: A04-25/P03-004)
Area Summary (Drawing Ref: A04-25/P03-016)
Hall Elevations (Drawing Ref: A04-25/P03-014)
Area Summary (Drawing Ref: A04-25/P03-015)
Masonic Hall Floor Plans (Drawing Ref: A04-25/P03-013)
Proposed & Existing Street Scenes (Drawing Ref: A04-25/P03-012)
Apartment Gable Elevations (Drawing Ref: A04-25/P03-011)
South and West Sectional Elevations (Drawing Ref: A04-25/P03-010)
North and East Apartment Elevations (Drawing Ref: A04-25/P03-009)
Third Floor/Roof Plans (Drawing Ref: A04-25/P03-007)
First and Second Floor Plans (Drawing Ref: A04-25/P03-006)
Lower/Ground Floor Plans (Drawing Ref: A04-25/P03-005)
APPLICATION No:
06/53613/FUL
APPLICANT:
Prospect (GB) Ltd
LOCATION:
Showmans Guild Site Broadway Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of three-six storey buildings comprising 180
apartments with variation to condition 6 (landscaping to be
carried out within 12 months) on planning permission
04/48888/FUL
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Showmans Guild site on Broadway in Salford. In August
2005, planning permission was granted for the erection of three six-storey blocks comprising 180
apartments together with creation of new vehicular access, car parking and associated landscaping.
This current proposal is a Section 73 application, and seeks to vary condition 6, attached to
planning permission 04/48888/FUL. Condition 6 of planning approval 04/48888/FUL states:
43
1st March 2007
“
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
”
The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscaping scheme which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started.
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 12 months of the
commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
In accordance with the requirements of condition 6, the details of the landscaping scheme have
already been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The condition
requires that the approved details be implemented within 12 months. However, the construction
period is in excess of 12 months. Therefore, the approved landscaping scheme cannot be
implemented within the timeframe set out by condition 6.
The process to vary a condition is by S73 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The granting of
a section 73 application would in effect grant a new planning permission. The remaining
pre-commencement conditions attached to 04/48888/FUL have already been discharged by the
LPA prior to this application and the scheme is currently under construction.
I have appended a copy of the previous report to the Planning and Transportation Regulatory panel
in respect of the original application to this report.
Therefore, whilst seeking to amend the timeframe for the landscaping scheme, approval of this S73
application would effectively grant consent for the erection of three-six storey buildings
comprising 180 apartments. As such, it is necessary to take account of all new material planning
considerations at the time a decision is made. Therefore, whilst this application is considering the
implementation of the landscaping scheme, changes to the development, recent policy guidance
and other material considerations should be balanced against the merits of the scheme.
SITE HISTORY
There is a detailed planning history on this site regarding the granting of planning permission for
residential purposes, a refusal of planning consent to vary conditions and an appeal. I will detail the
relevant history below.
In October 2006, planning permission was approved (06/52973/COU) for the change of use of a
section of land adjacent to the eastern boundary for use as a car park. This permission, coupled
with the re-positing of some of the original spaces would result in 6 additional car parking spaces.
However, I have attached a new condition requiring the car park as a whole (including the
additional strip of land) to be laid out in an appropriate manner.
Condition 8 of planning approval 04/48888/FUL requiring details of an electricity sub station has
been fully discharged and constructed on site. As such, I have not attached a further condition.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
The applicant has appealed conditions 13, 14 and 15 of planning approval 04/48888/FUL following
refusal of planning permission 05/51900/FUL which sought to vary the above conditions.
“
I have detailed the appealed conditions and Inspectors conclusions below:
”
Condition 13 states:
There shall be a solid barrier constructed at the boundary with the timber
yard to the north of the site to give a height of 2.4 metres above the yard’s ground level. This
barrier is to be constructed in accordance with the acoustic report submitted by the developer in
support of this application and illustrated on plans PLN05-005 and PLN05-001 (Revision C)
“
Inspector’s conclusion
“
”
For the above reasons I conclude that the acoustic barrier would only be relevant to the internal
living conditions of flats not otherwise acoustically protected from the activities of the timber yard,
that its absence would not, given the existence of such protection, give rise to an unacceptable
nuisance in respect of internal living conditions in any of the proposed apartments and that it is not
necessary in respect of the proposed external amenity areas. In my assessment there would be no
significant conflict with the intentions of policy ENV14 of the RUDP or relevant national policy as
expressed in PPG4 and PPG24 if condition (13) were to be removed. I therefore conclude that,
subject to the considerations outlined below in respect of condition (6), that the application to
remove condition (13) should succeed.
”
The appellant wishes to provide landscape screening in place of the acoustic barrier and I agree
that this would make an important contribution to the amenity and appearance of the development.
Condition 6 was to be discharged prior to commencement of development and an application to
vary the terms of that permission is stated by the Council to have been withdrawn. However, it
would be necessary to amend the scheme approved under condition (6) to reflect the stated
intentions of the appellant in respect of the landscape treatment to the boundary with the timber
yard and I would therefore impose an appropriate condition to that effect.
“
”
“
Inspectors Condition – 1) Prior to the first occupation of the apartments, revised details of the
landscape scheme referred to in condition (6), insofar as it relates to the boundary with the timber
yard, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in accordance with a timetable to be
agreed with and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Mechanical ventilation shall be provided to all dwellings without openable
”
Condition 15 states:
lights
“
”
Condition 14 states: There shall be no openable lights to any dwelling in block A, B, and the
west faēade of block C. The openable lights, including the frame and fixture, in addition to the
faēade itself shall give a minimum sound reduction of Rw=40dB
“
Inspector’s conclusion
For the reasons outlined above I consider it necessary to require that windows should be
incapable of being opened in the apartments concerned and I find it necessary to retain condition
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
”
(14) as imposed by the Council in order to ensure that the proposal accords with the intentions of
the development plan and relevant national policy in respect of the living conditions of occupants
and compatibility of land uses. I do not consider that there are any policy or other considerations
sufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused by the variation to condition (14) sought by
the appellant. It follows that condition (15), which requires mechanical ventilation to all dwellings
without openable lights should remain unaltered also. I therefore conclude that the appeal should
be dismissed in respect of conditions (14) and (15).
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by way of a press notice and site notice
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
4 – 42 (even) Joule Close
1 – 27 (con) Quay View
Batleys Plc, Ohio Avenue
Air Products Ltd, Broadway
G E Robinson & Co Ltd, Montford Street
5 Amusenent Depot, Bradford Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received not received any response to the application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: ST2: Housing Supply, ST6: Major Trip Generating Development, ST11: Location
of New Development, ST12: Development Density, DES1: Respecting Context, DES2: Circulation
and Movement, DES5: Tall Buildings, , DES9: Landscaping, DES10: Design and Crime, DES11:
Design Statement, H1: Provision of New Housing Development, H2: Managing the Supply of
Housing, H4: Affordable Housing, H8: Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing
Development, A2: Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled, A3: Metrolink, A8: Impact of
Development on the Highway Network, A9: Provision of New Highways, A10: Provision of Car,
Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, EN16: Contaminated Land, EN17: Pollution
Control, EN18: Protection of Water Resources, EN22: Resource Conservation, R2: Provision of
Recreational Land and Facilities, DEV5: Planning Conditions and Obligations,
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
DP1
L4
MCR2
–
-
1st March 2007
Regional Development Principles
Regional Housing Provision
Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City Region
There are a number of Supplementary Planning Documents which are also relevant to the
determination of this application. These include Design and Crime, Trees, the Greenspace Strategy
and Biodiversity and Nature Conservation. The Council’s Housing Planning (adopted) Guidance
and Planning Obligations SPD are also relevant, but have not as yet been adopted so can therefore
only be afforded limited weight in the decision making process. The Council, in conjunction with
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council, has also recently produced a draft of the Mediacity:UK
and Quays Point planning guidance, which has been the subject of public consultation. This is
however non-statutory guidance as it is not included within the Council’s Local Development
Framework. It does however set out guidelines which both authorities should have regard to in the
determination of planning applications, albeit that it has limited weight at this stage.
Given that the site does benefit from an extant permission for residential purposes and the recent
Inspectors decision, I consider that the principle of a mixed use scheme has been established on this
site. Therefore, I consider that the main planning issues relating to this application are: the changes
to the development plan, the phasing of the proposed landscaping, the recent inspectors decision
and the provision of open space. I will discuss each of these points below.
APPRAISAL
The purpose of implementation of a landscaping condition is to safeguard the amenity of area once
the construction phase has been completed. Therefore, provided that the approved scheme is
implemented at an appropriate time to coincide with the construction of the scheme, I consider it
appropriate to revise the implementation element of condition six.
The applicant has also provided a phasing plan (Drawing No. L03-003 Rev P1) which details three
phases around each of the three blocks of residential accommodation. The applicant is seeking to
implement the approved landscaping details within each of the phases prior to first occupation of
each residential block.
I consider it appropriate and reasonable to vary the implementation of this condition to this end.
Moreover, I am satisfied that such a variation would still safeguard the amenity of the area in
accordance with policy DES1 (replaced DEV1) of the adopted UDP.
I have attached a revised landscaping condition which incorporates a phasing mechanism and the
stated intentions of the applicant (during the recent appeal) and the Inspectors recommendations.
It is clear that there have been changes to the development plan since members considered the
original application. Those have included the adoption of the current Unitary Development Plan,
adoption of Supplementary Planning Documents and planning guidance. However, I do not
consider that the changes to the development have changed the principle of whether the
development of this site for residential purposes has changed.
Moreover, with regard to the recently adopted Housing Planning Guidance, the original planning
permission (04/48888/FUL) and the substantial completion of block C is a material consideration
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
in this instance. I do not consider it appropriate to seek vary the scheme from that already approved
with regard to the apartment mix. Moreover, it is clear that the scheme was ‘substantially
complete’ when this current application was submitted. Therefore, I do not consider it appropriate
to seek to secure the provision of any affordable housing.
OPEN SPACE CONTRIBUTION
In accordance with policies H6 and H11 of the superseded Salford UDP, the applicant has entered
into a section 106 legal agreement to provide £191,967 towards off site public open space and play
equipment. The agreement requires the developer to pay three equal payments of £47,991.75. The
developer has paid the first payment.
Whilst policies H6 and H11 have been replaced by policies H8 and R2, I do not consider it
reasonable to apply the revised method of calculation in this instance given that the proposal does
not seek to increase the number of apartments proposed and given that the scheme is currently on
site. I have been advised by the Council’s solicitor that a new legal agreement would be required
should permission be granted. However, it is clear that the sum of the two agreements should not
exceed the total requirement set out previously by policies H6 and H11.
Therefore, subject to a new S106 agreement to ensure that £191,967 is provided in total, I consider
that the scheme would provide an appropriate contribution towards open space as required by
policies H8 and R2 of the adopted UDP.
CONCLUSION
It is clear that the principle of residential development on this site has been established by the
granting of application 04/48888/FUL and the inspectors decision in relation to a number of
conditions.
Given that this application seeks to vary a condition of development to allow for an appropriate
phasing scheme but would effectively grant a new planning consent, it is necessary to attach similar
conditions to those attached to the original consent, albeit modified to reflect those conditions
where details have already been approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Therefore, I recommend that this application be approved with the removal of condition 13 (in
accordance with the recommendation of the Inspector) and with the rewording of the previous
conditions to reflect the commencement of development, the passage of time and the conditions,
which have already been agreed by the LPA.
RECOMMENDATION
1.
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a
commuted sum for, and implementation of, improvements to existing open space, such
open space shall be in close proximity to the development site in accordance with policies
H8 and R2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan in the local area to the value of
£191,967
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
2.
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning
permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
3.
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject
to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal
agreement,
4.
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposal would be contrary to
policies H8 and R2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The scheme hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted details for
the external elevations and roof of the building, as approved by the Local Planning Authority
on the 13th March 2005.
3. The scheme hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted details for
the car park screens, as approved by the Local Planning Authority on the 13th March 2005.
4. In accordance with approved site investigation report, submitted in accordance with condition
four of planning approval 04/48888/FUL, the recommendations and remedial works shall be
implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site. Prior to discharge of this
condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for
approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were
completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning Authority in the letter dated
30th March 2005.
5. The details of the bin storage and waste recycling facilities within the site, as shown on drawing
22883-PLN-04-014 and as approved by the Local Planning Authority on the 30th March 2005,
shall be implemented prior to occupation of any part of the development
6. Within 2 months of the date of this decision, revised details of the landscape scheme referred to
in condition 6 of planning approval 04/48888/FUL, insofar as it relates to the boundary with the
timber yard, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The landscaping for the whole site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details
outlined above and details approved by letter dated 28th March 2006 as shown on drawings
(22883 L-05-008 (Rev P1), 22883 PLN-05-004 (Rev B), 22883 L-03-001 (Rev P3), 22883
L-02-001 (Rev P4), 22883 L-03-002 Rev P1, 22883 L-90-002 Rev P1, 22883 L-90-003 Rev
P1, 22883 L-90-004 Rev P1, 22883 L-90-005 Rev P1, 22883 L-90-006 Rev P1, 22883
L-90-007 Rev P1, 22883 L-90-008 Rev P2 and 22883 L-90-010 Rev P1) and shall be
implemented in a phased manner as detailed in Drawing No. L03-003 Rev P1 in so much as
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Phase 1 of the landscaping shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any unit of Block
C. Phase 2 of the landscaping shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any unit of
accommodation in Block B. Phase 3 shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any unit
of accommodation in Block A.
7. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received in relation to application
04/48888/FUL on 1st March 2005 and 4th March 2005 which indicate that the balconies have
been deleted.
8. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received in relation to application
04/48888/FUL on 2nd December 2004 and 17th November 2004 which show amendments to
site layout and design.
9. The details of the lighting and CCTV surveillance of the car parking areas, as approved by the
Local Planning Authority on the 26th April 2005, shall be implemented in a phased manner as
detailed in Drawing No. L03-003 Rev P1
10. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the findings of the submitted Secured by
Design statement, approved by the Local Planning Authority 13th February 2006 and shall be
implemented in a phased manner as detailed in Drawing No. L03-003 Rev P1 unless otherwise
agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
11. The emergency exit doors and stairs of the development shall not be opened or used for
entrance or egress other than in cases of emergency.
12. There shall be no openable lights to any dwelling in block A, B, and the West faēade of block
C. The openable lights, including the frame and fixture, in addition to the faēade itself shall
give a minimum sound reduction of Rw=40dB.
13. Mechanical ventilation shall be provided to all dwellings without openable lights.
14. There shall be no balconies permitted except for Block C East faēade.
15. The glazing to the East faēade of Block C shall be designed to give an internal level of 35dB(A)
when considering a partially openable window in relation to the traffic noise measured which
has been measure to be LAeq = 45dB at night.
16. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use, that part of the site to be used by
vehicles shall be laid out, drained, surfaced and sealed in accordance with a scheme to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be
made available at all times after first occupation of the development
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
5. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
7. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
8. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
9. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
10. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
11. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
12. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
13. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
14. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
15. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
16. Standard Reason R013B Use of parking areas
Note(s) for Applicant
My previous observations and recommendations are set out below:
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Following the site inspection by Members, I have received two additional letters of representation.
One is from a former resident of the Showmans site who is concerned that the justification for the
loss of the Showmans site that has been submitted with the planning application is misleading as
the owner of the site wanted residents to leave, so the land could be sold off for development. The
second letter of representation is from the timber yard business, who acknowledge that the
developer has made a number of improvements to the proposed development, but they are still
concerned that, should the development go ahead, there will be complaints from future residents
about the noise level emanating from our site. The following points are raised:
The top of the proposed development will be approximately 35 feet above their site’s
ground level – making acoustic screening very difficult for the top level of apartments.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
While the apartments will have non-opening windows, they will have doors, which open
onto balconies.
Their working hours start at 6.00am Monday to Saturday and, in the summer, can extend as
late as 10.00pm. In addition, they occasionally work on Sundays.
There appears to be no plans to landscape the south-western boundary of the site opposite
the south end of Block A.
At the meeting of the panel held on the 16th December 2004 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
The amended plans submitted on 2nd December 2004 indicate that there would in fact be 100% car
parking at the site. Whilst the plans were amended deleting parking spaces to the western boundary
where there were concerns over security, replacement spaces have been provided between Block B
and C to maintain 180 spaces at the site. I consider that this level of car parking is acceptable.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant 1 hectare site, formerly used as a Showman’s Guild site. To the
north of the site, at a significantly higher level, is a timber yard, to the north-east are two-storey
dwellings on Quay View, to the east is the Lowry Centre coach park and the uses to the west and
south on Broadway are predominantly industrial and commercial.
Permission is sought for 180 apartments to be provided within three blocks. 100 two-bed
apartments and 80 one-bed apartments are proposed. Each block comprises 60 apartments and is 6
storeys in height. The three blocks are orientated at right angles to Broadway and there is a 21 metre
separation distance between them. A design statement has been prepared which considers the site
context, urban design principles and the proposed materials. A mixture of materials is proposed
including render, cedar boarding and steel panels. 170 parking spaces would be provided within the
site, in the form of surface parking and ground floor undercroft parking areas. Provision has been
identified for disabled parking and cycle storage. Two vehicular access points are proposed onto
Broadway and there would be five pedestrian access points. Two communal garden areas would be
provided between the blocks and the embankment to the north would be landscaped.
The application is accompanied by an acoustic report. A statement has been submitted in respect of
the loss of the Showman’s site.
SITE HISTORY
96/35735/FUL - Erection of two 1.8m steel palisade type gates at west entrance to the above site.
Approved 15.11.1996.
CONSULTATIONS
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Director of Environmental Services – There is concern regarding the compatibility between the
activities of the wood yard and the proposed residential use. The submitted plans show that the
apartments overlook the look yard from the third storey upwards. There is an additional concern
about the top storey having balconies. The timber yard starts its operations at 6am when it loads
lorries with timber for distribution. In addition to early morning site visits, unattended noise
monitoring undertaken on the site for 15 hours overnight to include the morning activities,
indicated that there is not only an increase in the general back ground noise level but also there are
short bursts of noise from the loading process which would cause sleep disturbance through an
open window, these are measured as an LAmax. There have been some assumptions when calculating
the level of noise as an LAmax that would be expected in the bedrooms of the nearest apartments.
BS8233 states that for a reasonable standard at night individual noise events should not normally
exceed 45 dB LAmax. With this in mind there is a need to attenuate that noise to an acceptable level.
A condition has been recommended requiring a further noise assessment to be undertaken, to
determine the precise mitigation measures for the building faēade, windows and balconies.
Environment Agency – Condition required for contaminated land site investigation.
Police Architectural Liaison Unit – A number of detailed concerns have been raised regarding
design and crime. Developer has provided amended plans which address a number of these
concerns. A condition is recommended for a lighting scheme and Safer Parking Scheme.
United Utilities – No objection to the proposal providing that if possible the site is drained on a
separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer. There is a sewer crossing
the site and United Utilities will not permit building over it.
Showman’s Guild Lancashire Branch – No comments received.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 9th September 2004.
A site notice was displayed on 1st September 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 27 (o) Quay View
2 – 22 (e) Quay View
2 – 42 (e) Joule Close
Timber Yard, Montford Street
5 Ohio Avenue
L.B. Batley, Ohio Avenue
Air Products, Broadway
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:-
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
1. the objection raised is in relation to ownership of the embankment between the timber yard
and the application site.
2. the impact on the timber business has not been assessed. Should the apartments be built as
described then residents will complain because:
o Sideloader Fork Lift Trucks are in operation from 6.00am each morning
o Some of the apartments directly face the timber site
o The garden areas are very close to the timber site
3. the proposed development is within a commercial/industrial area, only being bounded by
one residential property.
4. G E Robinson’s have operated from their present site continuously since 1918. It would be
unfair for their business to be adversely affected by a new housing development.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 Quality in New Development
SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies: H1 Meeting Housing Needs
H6 & H11 Open Space Provision
DEV1 Development Criteria
T13 Car Parking
DEV2 Good Design
DEV4 Design and Crime
EN20 Pollution Control
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies:
ST11 Location of New Development
H1 Provision of New Housing Development
H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development
EHC5 Sites for Travelling Showpeople
DES1 Respecting Context
DES11 Design and Crime
DES13 – Design Statements
DES9 Landscaping
A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
The main planning issues relating to this application are the loss of the Showman’s Guild site and
whether the principal of residential development is acceptable, whether there will be a sufficient
level of amenity for future occupiers, the relationship between the development and existing
adjoining uses, whether enough information has been submitted to assess the design and external
appearance of the proposed development on the streetscene and whether the proposal complies
with the relevant provisions of both the adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Replacement
Plan.
”
“
Principle of Residential Development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. With regards to the principle of the
proposed development, the site is located within an area of mixed uses. The site is not allocated
within either the adopted or Replacement UDP’s. It is a brownfield site and based on the sequential
approach to development outlined in Replacement UDP policy ST11, development of this site
would meet criteria 1B (i) and ii) through the re-use of previously developed land in a location well
related to housing, employment, services and well served by a choice of public transport. The site
is, however, recognised as a private site for travelling showpeople in policy EHC5 of the
Replacement UDP and Circular 22/91
Travelling Showpeople
requires the applicant to
demonstrate whether there is any demand for such a use. The applicant has submitted a statement in
respect of the loss of this use, which considers the policy context, current provision of sites and a
justification for the loss of this site. The Lancashire Branch of the Showman’s Guild has been
consulted on this planning application, but no comments have been received. The reasoned
justification of policy EHC5 states that there is currently a high level of provision with an under-use
of some sites. In view of this and having considered the applicant’s statement, I do not consider that
the loss of this site would have a detrimental impact on the provision of sites for travelling
showpeople within the City.
Adopted UDP policy H1 details the need for new housing and supports the proposal through
criteria (ii) the release of land to accommodate new house building. Replacement plan policy H1
requires that all new housing developments meet a range of criteria, including, to contribute
towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings, not lead to an oversupply, provide
accommodation at an appropriate density, provide a high quality environment and make adequate
provision for open space. I consider that the development is of an appropriate density in a location
close to a range of public transport modes and will contribute to a balanced mix of size.
Residential amenity/ relationship to surrounding uses
Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
Policies DEV1, DES1 and DES7 require consideration to be given to residential amenity and to
provide well designed development that fits in with the character of the area. The Director of
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Environmental Services has raised concerns about the potential loss of amenity to future residents
from the existing levels of noise experienced at the site, in particular from the timber yard. This
matter has also been raised by the timber yard in their written objection. The blocks have been
orientated at right angles to both the timber yard and Broadway in an attempt to minimise future
noise nuisance. The Director of Environmental Services has undertaken detailed noise
investigations and is now satisfied that, subject to a further noise investigation, adequate mitigation
measures, such as acoustic dual glazing, non-opening windows, mechanical ventilation, balcony
screening and acoustically treated faēade can be incorporated into the building fabric so as to
mitigate disturbance to future residents.
With regards to the relationship to existing dwellings, the distance between the corner of Block C
and the corner of 23 Quay View is 18.5 metres. The development would not directly face these
dwellings and the site level is at a lower level of approximately 5 metres. There are no windows
proposed to the gable elevation of Block C. A sunlight study has been produced which shows that
the level of sunlight to the dwellings on Quay Close would be largely unaffected until late
afternoon. I do not therefore consider that there would be any significant loss of privacy, light or
amenity to these residents.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 require development to be designed to minimise the risk of crime and
Supplementary Planning Guidance – Designing Out Crime encourages natural surveillance for new
developments. The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit has raised some concerns
with regards to secure by design considerations and the applicant has made a number of
amendments to the proposed development which address most of these concerns.
I consider that the proposed development would provide sufficient levels of natural surveillance for
communal gardens and parking areas. I have some reservations with regards to the western area of
car parking, parts of which are remote from the proposed apartments. Amended plans have been
received which indicate that some of these spaces have been deleted from the proposal. Alternative
uses for this area are however problematic. There is a sewer running across this area and in addition
to this the size and shape of the site is such that development of it would prove difficult. An
alternative would be to provide amenity space here, however, this would be remote from the
apartments and its position is such that it would be unlikely to be used by residents. Landscaping
may also be problematic given the sewer running under the site. If this part of the site were removed
from the application site to be considered at a future date, I consider that there is a strong likelihood
that it would become overgrown and problematic. A draft secure by design statement has been
submitted. The applicant proposes a scheme of lighting and CCTV surveillance for this area,
furthermore, the site would be secured by the proposed boundary treatments and gates. I therefore
consider the proposal to be in accordance with policies DEV4 and DES11
Design and Appearance of the Proposed Development
Adopted UDP Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the
Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development. Policies
DEV2 and DES1 seek to encourage the enhancement of the environment through good design. A
Design Statement has been submitted that considers the site’s context and urban design principles.
I consider that the proposed design is of a high standard and complements the character of the
surrounding area. The applicant has indicated that the proposed materials would be a mixture of
render, cedar boarding and steel. I am satisfied that the principle of such materials is acceptable and
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
have however attached a condition requiring the submission and approval of all materials prior to
the commencement of the development in order to ensure that they are of a suitably high quality
and ensure that the proposed building would make a positive contribution to the area. I am
satisfied that the design and external appearance of the proposed development is acceptable and
would be in keeping with the character of the area.
Traffic Generation and Car Parking Provision
Policy T13 requires developments to have adequate and appropriate car parking and servicing and
identifies minimum parking standards. Within the revised deposit draft UDP there are no standards
for car parking for dwellings and the emphasis is on maximum parking standards, in line with
national (PPG3 and PPG13) and regional planning guidance (RPG13) and the desire to have less
reliance on travel by private car. 94% parking provision has been identified for the development.
Given the location of the site at close proximity to Salford Quays and the tram and bus services, I
consider that this level of parking is acceptable. I have no highway objections to the proposals.
Amenity Space, Open Space Provision and Landscaping
Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play within new
housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11 which sets out a sliding scale for such
provision. Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and
informal open space within housing developments. In accordance with these policies, the applicant
has agreed to make a financial contribution towards open space. This would be through the
provision of a commuted sum towards open spaces in the vicinity.
With regards to the provision of amenity space within the site, two communal garden areas are
proposed between Blocks A and B and B and C. In addition, high quality landscaping proposals
have been submitted for the landscaping provision both within the site and to the site boundaries
and the embankment to the north.
I therefore consider that a satisfactory level of amenity space has been identified for the proposed
houses and apartments.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
i) Pre-application discussions were held with the developer
ii) Amended plans received addressing concerns regarding design and security
iii) In accordance with policies H6/H11 and H8, the applicant has agreed to make a financial
contribution of £191,967 towards open space improvements in the local area.
CONCLUSION
The main issues in the determination of this proposal are the suitability of residential development
on this site, the design and scale of the proposal and its impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents. I do not consider that the proposed development would result in any significant
detrimental impact on neighbouring residents and I consider that the scale and siting of the
development is appropriate. I consider that the regeneration of this site with this well-designed
contemporary development, would make a significant contribution to the visual amenity of the
area.
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
RECOMMENDATION
5.
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a
commuted sum for, and implementation of, improvements to existing open space, such
open space shall be in close proximity to the development site in accordance with policies
H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan in the local area to the value
of £191,967
6.
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning
permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
7.
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject
to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal
agreement,
8.
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposal would be contrary to
policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
06/53710/FUL
APPLICANT:
Premier Land (Salford) Ltd
LOCATION:
Former Ford Mill Site Corner Of Ford Lane And Greenwood
Street Salford M6 6PE
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of part six and
part eight storey building with basement car parking to provide
119 apartments together with construction of new vehicular
and pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
At a meeting of the Panel held on 18th January 2007 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED for further negotiations and discussion regarding the design of the scheme.
I have met with the applicant’s agents regarding the concerns raised by the Panel with regard to the
design and external appearance of the building. Several options to enhance the design of the
building have been discussed. Those have included adding a two storey element which would
provide additional apartments to one end of the scheme to create more interest at roof level; adding
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
balconies to the main street elevation; and investigating whether there was anything else that could
be done to the roof to counteract the criticism of its being flat.
Whilst serious though these attempts have been, I do not consider that the options would improve
the design of each of the elevations and would appear to be later additions and not part of a holistic
design solution. I consider that such ‘additions’ would detract from the setting of the listed
buildings. The applicant has sought to demonstrate the key features of the buildings design which
may have been lost through the projection of 2 dimensional ‘flat’ elevations during the previous
Panel meeting and to provide a further appraisal of the scheme.
”
“
The triangular site bounded by the railway line, Greenwood Street and Ford Lane sits between two
listed buildings; St Thomas’s Church and the Maypole public house adjoining which are the
recently refurbished Pendleton Co-operative society buildings. All three of these buildings are
Grade II listed and make strong architectural statements which are the product of their material,
massing, location as a group and the specific style itself derived from the prevalent architectural
fashions in early 19th century ecclesiastical and late 19th century public house and retail design. The
church is stone, built in a simple
Commissioners Gothic style whilst the Public house and
Pendleton Cooperative society are both strongly detailed red brick and terra cotta buildings of a far
more eclectic style.
When responding to such a situation the designer has a number of choices:-
”
”
“
“
To create a building that blends in with its neighbours by faithfully copying their
form and detail, effectively camouflaging the new,
Creating a pastiche i.e. a building which recreates, in this case a late 19th Early
20th century form and detail of a building that may have stood in this location or
locality. Many current apartment blocks take this approach; or
Create a contemporary design, which respects its setting using modern building
materials and techniques just as their 19th century predecessors did in their own
time.
The first two options run the risk of producing a building which is a pale imitation of its historic 19th
century predecessors and which because of the constraints of building control legislation leads to
unacceptable visual compromises particularly in fenestration. The result being a new building
unsuccessfully aping the style of the past.
The applicant has provided a detailed section and sample materials in order to appreciate the depth
of the elevation and the how the materials respect the surrounding buildings.
“
I have also consulted the Councils consultant architect who has provided the applicant with
pre-application advice. He considers;
”
“
Bearing in mind the intended use of the development, housing and apartments, and the
strength and conflicting architectural styles of its immediate neighbours, the chosen option
of a more restrained
modern
expression for a building type reflecting a growing
contemporary lifestyle is a logical choice. Its scale and materials, particularly the smooth
red brick respect, those of many its neighbours and it will provide a strong presence on Ford
Lane without fighting visually with its neighbours.
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Whilst not as rich as that of the adjoining buildings the elevations are modelled, the strong
vertical brick panels creating strong shadow lines to the curtain wall glazing. The terraced
balconies overlooking the Broughton Lane, Ford Lane Junction animates the elevation
whilst the addition of the two shorter 6th and 7th stories enlivens the roofline. The roof
terrace provides an opportunity for some personalization of this space by planting. This is a
modern building. The addition of false detail as a form of decoration would detract from
what is essentially a restrained solution to a specific townscape situation.
At ground level the plinth, projecting out beyond the building face, acts as a solid visual base
for the building and a private access area for the accommodation facing Ford Lane and
Greenwood Street. Here the ground floor is undercut to create a small private garden and
entrance area that occupants will personalize bringing life to the street edge.
The material board shows the intention to use good quality materials, a precise red brick, a
dark neutral glazing and metal panelling system and oiled timber rain-screen cladding. The
materials and colours combine well together and are visually complimentary. The detailing
should be precise and sharp which will produce an engineered look to the building.
”
I believe the overall result is that the proposed development is a 21st century building
reflecting modern building technology, well designed, appropriate to its location, will
compliment the adjacent listed buildings without fighting for attention and detracting from
them and be a welcome addition the location.
”
“
Therefore, whilst there have been no changes to the external appearance since members previously
considered the scheme, I do consider that the additional information boards, sections and materials
help articulate the scheme. The Councils consultant architect is also of the opinion that the scheme
is well designed and would compliment the adjacent listed buildings. Moreover, I do not consider
that tweaks to the design would provide significant improvements beyond what is a good
scheme.
Therefore, I still consider the scheme to be an appropriate solution within the constraints of the site
and within proximity to a number of listed buildings. I also consider that the scheme fully accords
with the adopted development plan.
My previous observations are set out below:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Ford Mill, Ford Lane in Pendleton. Ford Lane bounds the site
to the south, Greenwood Street to the west and the Manchester to Wigan railway cutting to the east.
The site is triangular in shape, 0.26 hectares in size and is currently occupied by a group of
buildings which are predominantly 2 storey red brick in appearance. To the rear of the site is a 3
storey building of glass and corrugated steel adjacent to Greenwood Street.
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
The proposal seeks consent for the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of part six
and part eight storey building with basement car parking to provide 119 apartments together with
construction of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses.
There is a change in levels across the site. The proposal utilises the change in levels in the
provision of car parking. At the corner of Ford Lane and Greenwood Street the proposal would be
at its highest, 8 storey. Ford Lane reduces in height to the west and the elevation fronting Ford
Lane also reduces in height to six storey (above road level) and includes the vehicular access. The
footprint of the proposal is ‘L’ shaped and the elevation fronting Greenwood Street would be
similar to that on Ford Lane with 8 storey at the corner stepping down. The roof height of the lower
element would be the same at the roof height of the six storey element on Ford Lane. However, due
the change in levels the height of the building at the northern end of Greenwood Street would be 7
storey above road level.
Two vehicular access points would be provided to the scheme. One would be off Ford Lane and the
other would be off Greenwood Street. Residential accommodation would be provided above each
of the access points.
In total sixty nine car parking spaces would be provided off street within the court yard formed by
the ‘L’ shape of the proposed building. 36 spaces would be provided in an upper level and would
be accessed via the exiting on Ford Lane and 33 spaces would be provided in an undercroft section
accessed from a new entrance on Greenwood Street.
SITE HISTORY
01/42254/OUT - Outline planning application for the development of land for residential purposes
– Approved June 2001
04/48282/OUT - Renewal of outline planning permission 01/42254/FUL for the development of
land for residential development – Approved January 2006
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection in principle subject the inclusion of a condition
requiring a site investigation and conditions to safeguard future occupants from noise and vibration.
United Utilities – No objection in principle subject to approval of drainage connections
Environment Agency – No response
“
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – As stated in the design and access
statement, the site is well located in relation to public transport being within walking distance of
the bus stops on Broughton Road and Broad Street that offer frequent services to destinations
including Manchester, Bolton, Leigh, Wigan and Oldham. Nearby Salford Crescent rail station
provides services to Manchester Victoria and Wigan. Future residents of the proposed
development would therefore have access to a choice of travel mode which should help to reduce
the amount of car travel otherwise generated by this development. Furthermore, the use of this site
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
for high density residential development is supported as it maximises the benefits of the site’s good
public transport accessibility.
In order to maximise the benefits of the site’s location in relation to the public transport facilities, it
should be ensured that the pedestrian environment is designed to be as safe and convenient as
possible so as not to discourage people from accessing the site on foot / by public transport. This
should apply between the site and the nearby public transport facilities, in particular the bus stop
on Broad Street situated on the opposite side of the carriageway south east of the site and can be
achieved through measures such as the appropriate use of surfacing materials, landscaping,
lighting, signage and road crossings.
No objection given the intention to apply for secured by
”
Police Architectural Liaison Advisor –
design certification
“
”
It is important to influence people’s travel patterns at the beginning of occupation and therefore,
although the site is accessible by public transport, GMPTE would expect a Residential Travel Plan
to accompany this application to help encourage future occupants to use sustainable modes of
travel.
Urban Regeneration Company – No objection
Ramblers Association – No objection
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No response
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No response
The Open Spaces Society – No response
Network Rail – No objection in principle. Recommends the following:
that advice is sought with regard to the impact of the noise from the railway on future
occupiers
The applicant provide a suitable trespass proof fence adjacent to the railway
Where the parking spaces or vehicle manoeuvring areas are proposed adjacent to the
boundary of the railway, an Armco or similar barrier must be provided
Provide advice regarding drainage
Any external lighting should not impact upon the use of the railway
Consideration should be given to future maintenance requirements
A method statement should be provided for works within 10m of the railway
Requirement that during the construction period all mechanical plant should be carried out
in a ‘fail safe’ mannor
“
Charlestown and Kersal New Deal for Communities – New Deal for Communities are
generally supportive of the redevelopment of this strategic site, however, they raise some concern
with the proposed applications on a number of aspects and request that these issues are given due
consideration during the determination process.
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
The initial concern relates to the proposed bland and unimaginative design and how that will sit
between 3 listed buildings. The scale and massing proposed is excessive and will detract from its
historic surroundings. The stark new red brick, aluminium and timber may appear alien amongst
the existing limestone and sandstone buildings.
They note that there are only 11 three bed apartments proposed in this scheme. This suggests that
family accommodation is not a priority for the developer. New Deal for Communities are
committed to providing a wide range of family housing in different tenures and would hope to see
this reflected in a revised scheme.
Within Policy HOU5of the now adopted Housing Planning Guidance it states that this development
would have to provide 20% affordable dwellings. This does not appear to be reflected in the
application.
There are a total of 69 car parking spaces proposed within the scheme. Is this sufficient to serve
119 apartments in this area?
Finally they query whether any consideration been given to any s.106 allocation.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 13th November 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on 16th November 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Apartments 1 – 13 (con), The Maypole, 9 Broughton Road
Apartments 1 – 50 (con), The Gateway, 11 - 21 Broughton Road
Boxmax, Castle Works, Bazaar Street
Newbury House, Greenwood Street
3 Cobden Street, Sovereign House, 5 Cobden Street
The Unicorn, 10 Broughton Road
22 Broughton Road
Church Inn, Ford Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Insufficient car parking
Would result in on street car parking
Impact upon St Thomas Church (listed building)
Redevelopment consultation with New Deal have been for low rise redevelopment
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, H1
Provision of New Housing Development, H2 Managing the Supply of
Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Within New Housing
Developments, ST11 Location of New Development, A1 Transport
Assessments and Travel Plans, A8 Impact of Development on the
Highway Network, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle
Parking in New Development, E5 Development Within Established
Employment Areas, EN14 Pollution Control, EN22 Resource
Conservation, DES5 Tall Building, DES7 Amenity of Users and
Neighbours, CH1 Development Effecting the Setting of a Listed
Building
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1
–
L4
MCR2 -
Regional Development Principles
Regional Housing Provision
Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City Region
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Given that outline planning consent has been granted for the principle of residential development, I
consider that the main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the
proposed development is acceptable at the density proposed, whether the design, layout and mix of
the proposal is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
whether the proposal would have any impact upon highway safety; whether the proposal impact
upon the setting of a listed building; and whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable. I shall
deal with each of these issues in turn.
Loss of Employment Land
Strategic Policy ST3 seeks to ensure the supply of a good range of local employment opportunities.
Adopted policy E5 allows for a number of exceptions to this presumption against the loss of
employment land. This issue was considered in the extant outline permission for residential
purposes. In granting planning permission it was considered that the loss of this site for
employment purposes would not result in a material shortfall across the City.
Given that the site benefits from outline planning consent for residential purposes, I do not consider
that the loss of employment provision should be reconsidered by the panel.
The Principle of Residential Development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPS3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be considered
in accessible locations.
The release of draft RSS in January 2006, proposes to significantly increase the housing
requirement in Salford with over a threefold increase in the annual requirement from 530 to 1600
units per annum. Whilst the provision of housing is relevant in the consideration of this scheme, it
should be noted that little weight can be afforded to draft RSS at this time.
Policy ST11 states that sites for development will be brought forward in a sequential order. The
sequential order is defined below:
1
2
3
4
The re use and conversion of existing buildings
Previously-developed land in locations that:
(i) are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice
of means of transport; and
(ii) are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure
Previously-developed land in other locations, provided that adequate levels of
accessibility and infrastructure provision could be provided
Green field locations
(i) are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice
of means of transport; and
(ii) are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure
It is clear that the site has been previously developed and has the benefit of outline planning consent
for residential purposes and is in a location well served by a choice of transport which I discuss
further below. This clearly establishes the principle of this scheme. As such I consider that this site
to be defined as criteria 2(i) in the sequential order and therefore accords with Policy ST11 of the
adopted Unitary Development Plan.
I do not consider that circumstances have changed to warrant a different view on the principle of
residential development on this site. However, the outline consent did not approve a density on this
site and it is, therefore, appropriate to consider the proposed density.
Density
Policy ST12 states that development within the regional centre, town centres, and close to key
public transport routes and interchanges will be required to achieve a high density appropriate to
the location and context.
The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive have been consulted on this application
and have not raised any objection. The response from GMPTE highlights the accessibility of the
site.
Given that this site is located within the regional centre and having regard to the existing public
transport infrastructure, as outlined above, I am satisfied that the density is appropriate for this
location.
Housing Mix
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced
mix of dwellings within the local area. Criterion 1, of this policy states that all new housing
development will be required to contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings
within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability.
”
“
Policy H2 of the adopted UDP is also relevant to the consideration of the scale of the proposal.
Whilst seeking to ensure that an adequate supply of new housing is provided across the city in
accordance with that set out in RSS, this policy seeks to restrict housing development in areas
where there is evidence of an unacceptable actual or potential oversupply of housing . At the
current time there is no clear evidence of an oversupply of housing in this area. It is also important
to take into consideration evidence from all levels (national, regional and local), which suggests
that household growth is likely to continue and that in acknowledgement of this, the draft RSS is
proposing to significantly increase annual housing provision for Salford. However, at present I
consider that some weight, albeit little, should be afforded to the draft RSS.
The residential accommodation proposed in this scheme would comprise of the following
apartment mix:
12 studio apartments (10.1% in total)
33 one bedroom apartments (27.7% in total)
63 two bedroom apartments (52.9% of the total)
11 three bedroom apartments (9.2% of the total)
Planning Guidance for Housing has now been adopted by the Council (20 th December 2006) and
replaced the draft Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The thrust of this guidance
is to ensure a balanced mix in accordance with policy H1 of the UDP. Whilst the guidance is less
prescriptive than the draft SPD in terms of specifying an amount of any one type of
accommodation, it does seek to provide an appropriate mix. The guidance has been adopted by the
City Council and is therefore a material consideration.
”
“
…
The site is located within the Central Salford zone as defined within the Planning Guidance for
Housing. The guidance states
new developments should provide a broad mix of dwelling
types. Apartments should only be the predominant form of provision on sites in the most accessible
locations within Central Salford
The advice from GMPTE confirms that is site is accessible by a choice of means of transport.
Moreover, the site is also within walking distance of Salford Shopping City.
The average floor area for the apartments would be as follows:
studio apartments (12) 34 sq m
one bedroom apartments (33) 45 sq m
two bedroom apartments (63) 66 sq m
three bed apartment (11) 84 sq m
Whilst the floor areas highlighted above are averages, only the 1 bed room and studios would be
less than 57 sq m. A total of 62.1% of the overall provision would be greater than 57sq m in floor
area.
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
The scheme, exceeds 50% accommodation at 57sq m or greater and would provide a range of
apartments within the scheme. Therefore, I consider that the mix identified above and having
regard to the wider area is sufficient to satisfy the Planning Guidance for Housing (Central Salford
zone) and policy H1 of the adopted UDP.
Affordable Housing
Policy H4 requires that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet
local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the Council, to provide affordable
housing of appropriate types.
Policy HOU3 of the Councils Housing Planning Guidance requires that on all residential sites over
1 hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings, or in housing developments of 25 or more
dwellings, 20% of the dwellings should be in the form of affordable dwellings.
Policy HOU4 of the Councils Housing Planning Guidance provides advice on the types of
affordable housing.
Policy HOU5 of the Housing Planning Guidance proposes that affordable housing provided on-site
should be integrated into the rest of the development, and visible differences between tenures of
provision should be minimised, as far as practicable.
As stated above Policy H4 of the UDP requires developers to provide an element of affordable
housing where there is a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs. There is a need citywide for
affordable housing, with an Affordable Needs Assessment showing the need for around 600
affordable units per annum, over the period 2006-16. Amongst other things, this need is a result of
rising house prices to household incomes, an increase in those on the Housing Register, the Right to
Buy scheme, and a decrease in the vacant local authority and RSL stock.
Housing Planning Guidance clarifies policy H4 of the UDP. It states that an element of affordable
housing should be provided on-sites over 25 dwellings or 1 ha, and that as the starting point 20% of
the total units should normally be affordable. Although the site already has outline planning
permission and there was no requirement for affordable housing at that time, it is necessary to
consider all relevant material changes since that application including the Housing Planning
Guidance.
”
“
The Housing Planning Guidance acknowledges that a reduced proportion of affordable housing or
lower commuted sum may be appropriate where the development may otherwise become unviable.
Paragraph 5.9 of the guidance states
In such circumstances, the evidence provided by the
developer should include a financial statement that has been professionally certified. This will be
treated on a confidential basis, where appropriate
The applicants have confirmed that they do not intend to provide affordable housing as part of their
proposals for this site and have provided a supplementary document to support their view that
affordable housing should not be required in this instance. I have summarised the main elements of
the report below:
There are a very high level of affordable housing in the immediate area
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
There are low house prices in the immediate area compared to average incomes
The financial impact of the provision of affordable housing, combined with other
planning obligations, as set out in Salford City Council’s Draft Planning Obligations
SPD, would affect scheme viability, and;
The scheme was substantially developed before the adoption of the Housing Planning
Guidance
”
“
Of particular relevance is the final bullet point of policy HOU3 ‘Quantity of Affordable Homes’,
where it discusses when a lower proportion of affordable housing, or a lower proportion of
commuted sum may be appropriate. The bullet point states The scheme was substantially
developed before the adoption of this Guidance
In this particular case, pre application discussion were held with the developer prior to August
2006, which improved the external form of the development. The design of the scheme was
nearing completion at this time and a requirement for affordable housing was not required at that
time having regard to the extant outline permission and given that the policy document had not
been adopted. I also consider that the amendments made to the scheme have resulted in an
exemplar design between two listed buildings. Given that substantial discussions and changes to
the scheme were undertaken prior to the adoption of the guidance and given that the application
was submitted prior to this date, I do not consider it appropriate to secure affordable housing
provision as part of this scheme.
Turning to the remaining points, the submitted report also includes a financial appraisal for the
scheme. It concludes that the developers margin would be less that the 15% industry standard
without the inclusion of even 12 affordable units (20% of half of the numbers proposed). The
report also provides details of the average house price in Salford being less than the national
average and that substantial levels of high quality affordable housing are already being delivered in
Central Salford through the Manchester Salford Housing Market Renewal Programme.
Design, Scale and Massing
Adopted Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to be fully accessible to all people,
maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists to, through and around the site, enable
pedestrians to navigate their way through an area by providing appropriate views, vistas and
transport links, enable safe, direct and convenient access to public transport facilities and other
local amenities and minimise potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
Policy DES5 states that tall buildings will be permitted where they meet a number of criteria.
Those criteria include that the scale of the development is appropriate to its context and location;
that the location is highly accessible to public transport, walking and cycling; that the building
would relate positively to and interact well with the adjacent public realm; that the building would
be of the highest quality design; that the building would make a positive addition to the skyline and
would not detract from important views and that there would be no unacceptable impact on the
setting of a listed building or on the character or appearance of a conservation area.
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Policy DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal takes
account of the need for good design. In accordance with the requirements of this policy a written
statement has been submitted which explains the design concepts and how these are reflected in the
development’s layout, scale and visual appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context
and how the proposal meets the Council’s design objectives and policies.
The tallest component of the building addresses the corner of Ford Lane and Greenwood Street and
will compliment the tower of St Thomas’s Church as a focal point without competing with the
church.
The scheme is of a contemporary design adjacent to a mix of nineteenth century buildings. The
design philosophy, outlined in the submitted supporting information, is to use a similar palette of
materials that will ensure that a new scheme will complement rather than compete with the
neighbouring buildings, particularly St Thomas’ Church. The building would be constructed in red
brick and stone, whilst the upper two of the 8 storey tower will have a timber clad and aluminium
finish. The roof will be flat with some overhang, which has enabled the construction of the two
seventh floor terraced areas of the roof of the 6 storey wings.
A stone plinth wraps round the building rising up as the building moves from 3 to 5
In respect of materials, the buildings adjacent to the application site are primarily constructed in red
brick with stone or terracotta dressing, with the exception of the Church, which is stone built. The
proposed palette of materials comprises red brick, stone, timber cladding and aluminium, which is
compatible with the palette of the existing buildings. However, the quality of these materials would
be crucial to the successful integration of the building into its context.
The architects for the scheme have sought to achieve a high quality of design. It is consider that a
high quality design has been achieved and that this development is of a high quality in accordance
with the adopted policies of the development plan highlighted above. I consider that the proposal
represents am exemplar design.
Therefore, subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring samples of materials to be approved
prior to the commencement of development, I am satisfied that the proposed design and materials
are acceptable.
Effects of the development on residential 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.
The layout of the proposal is in the form of an ‘L’ shape. Therefore, internally the scheme does not
provide for any facing windows. Externally there are no main habitable windows contained within
the gable of both the northern and eastern elevations. These elevations are closest to the
neighbouring railway. The southern and western elevations, which provide the main aspect
externally, front the neighbouring church yard and industrial area respectfully.
The applicant has provided a full noise assessment. The report concludes that future occupiers of
the scheme would not be unduly affected by surrounding noise. The Director of Environmental
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Services has assessed the submitted report and raises no objection subject to the provision of
conditions safeguard against noise and vibration. Clearly the principle of a residential scheme on
this site has been established through the granting of outline consent. Therefore, subject to
conditions in relation to the above, I consider that the scheme would not have a detrimental impact
upon residential amenity.
Effect on Listed Buildings
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 scale of the development, whilst larger than the existing buildings on site, is comparable with
the scale of adjacent buildings. The relationship between the proposed development and St
Thomas’ Church is of particular interest, as the Church should remain the dominant building in key
views of the area.
From the junction of Ford Lane and Broughton Road and from Greenwood Street, where the land
slopes away from the application site, the proposed development would appear comparable in scale
to the Church, however, in all other views, such as further down Broughton Road and from the
roundabout and A6, St Thomas’ Church is by far the most dominant building within these views
because of its position on the highest ground in the immediate area. It is considered that the
proposed development would not compete with the Church in these important views and, as such,
the proposed scale is acceptable.
Moreover, the materials proposed are discussed earlier in this report. I am also satisfied that the
materials proposed are acceptable in this location adjacent to a listed building.
Therefore, I consider that the application accords with policy CH2 as outlined above.
“
Design and Crime
Policy DES10 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Design and Crime
seeks to ensure that development is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear
of crime, and support personal and property security. Crime and Disorder is a material planning
consideration.
”
The Police Architectural Liaison advisor has considered the proposals. The response states
Having looked at the drawings I note the applicant’s intention of applying for Secured by Design
certification and I can see no problem with the proposals.
As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of
designing out crime.
Car Parking and Access
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s minimum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
The applicant’s agent has provided a Transport Assessment (TA) in accordance with policy A1 of
the adopted UDP.
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
Vehicular access into the site will be provided via the existing entrance on Ford Lane and via a new
access point on Greenwood Street. The sloping topography of the site enables the provision of
sixty nine car parking spaces in a naturally ventilated split-level car park. Thirty Six spaces would
be provided in an upper level and would be accessed via the exiting on Ford Lane and thirty three
spaces would be provided in an undercroft section accessed from a new entrance on Greenwood
Street. Access to the car park would be controlled by a series of secure electronic gates.
Pedestrian access to the three bed dual aspect apartments would be directly via street level
entrances on Ford Lane and Greenwood Street, whilst pedestrian access to the upper storeys of the
development will be via a level access at the focal corner point of the proposal.
As stated earlier, the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive has no objection to the
proposal.
Given the site’s location in relation to existing community, public transport and other local
facilities, I consider that 69 car parking spaces to be an appropriate level for this part of the City.
Given the likely time period to construct the proposal I have attached a condition requiring the
submission of a site operating statement. This will require information to be provided and agreed
on:
provision of permitted hours for construction works
delivery of materials and delivery and collection of equipment
provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's vehicles
wheelwashing facilities
street sweeping
I have also attached a condition requiring the provision of cycle stores for the apartments.
Subject to the above conditions I have no highway objections and I am satisfied that the proposal
accords with the requirements of the policies highlighted.
Open Space Provision
Adopted Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
Adopted policy R2 states that planning permission will be granted for recreational development
provided it would satisfy a number of criteria.
This application is for 119 dwellings - therefore the open space requirements set out in UDP
Policies H8/R2 are applicable. The proposed development would generate 311bedspaces (11no.
3bed, 63no. 2bed, 33no. 1 bed, & 12no. studios). This would require open space provision, and its
20 year maintenance, equivalent to:
0.227ha formal sports provision
0.07775ha of children's equipped/youth and adult provision
0.1244ha amenity/informal open space provision
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
The site size is 0.26ha - therefore it is not expected this requirement to be met by on-site provision.
Instead a financial contribution equivalent to the capital and maintenance cost of the above open
space, to be directed towards improvements to open space provision in the locality of the
development is considered appropriate in this case.
The total financial contribution required from this development, to meet the requirements of UDP
Policies H8/R2, would be £139,950 (311bedspaces X £450).
The site is located in an area of the city which has limited access to existing sites, due to transport
infrastructure (main roads and railway lines). However, some suggested sites which may be
suitable for the contribution to be directed to, include:
Gloucester Place (Brunswick Park) - the application site is within the catchment of this
proposed LEAP
Clarendon Park - the application site is within the catchment of this existing
Neighbourhood Park and NEAP
Brindle Heath Playing Fields
Peel Park
Land at Duchy Road (Brindle Heath Lagoons) - UDP R6/12 new/improved recreation land
site.
As such, I am satisfied that this contribution complies with Adopted Policy H8 and R2 of the
adopted plan subject to the provision of an appropriate S106 agreement to secure this level of
contribution.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with Policy H8 of the Adopted UDP, the applicant has agreed to enter into an
agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of a
total of £139,950. This would contribute to the provision of open space in the vicinity.
The design, scale and massing of the proposal has been improved through negotiation with Urban
Visions officers.
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied that the amended design is of a high quality 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 am satisfied that the proposed development would continue to act as a catalyst for
future successful development in this area and that it would signify the City Council’s intent to
accept a high quality development. 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.
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the Report)
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and
ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors
as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks
to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building
structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors
including ecological systems and property. The investigation shall where appropriate include a
risk assessment and an options appraisal including the remedial strategy.
The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including its risk
assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial
strategy.
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. Prior to the commencement of the development, the applicant shall submit to the Local
Planning Authority in writing an assessment of vibration levels expected at the development
due to the passage of freight trains. This assessment shall identify the likely impact of such
freight movements including the times such freight movements occur and shall further propose,
where necessary, appropriate mitigation measures to protect the development from the effects
of such vibration. Once agreed in writing, all agreed vibration mitigation measures shall be
implemented fully in the construction of the building.
4. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
5. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme for the apartments has been
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme as is
approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
6. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
7. No development shall commence until a scheme of recycling facilities for the apartments
contained within the site 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.
8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the external elevations of the development 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.
9. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
10. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning
Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a
commuted sum as required by Policy H8 of the Adopted, having regard to the standards set out
in Policy R2 of the Adopted UDP and Salford's Greenspace Strategy will be paid to the Local
Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes.
11. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation to
provision of permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials and delivery and
collection of equipment, provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's
vehicles, wheelwashing facilities, street sweeping and no development or activities related or
incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement.
12. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing an assessment of the noise impact
from the passage of freight trains. This assessment shall identify the likely impact of such
freight movements including the times at which such freight movements occur and shall
identify, where necessary, appropriate additional mitigation measures to protect the
development form the effects of such noise. Once agreed in writing, all acoustic protection
measures shall be implemented fully into the construction of the building prior to first
occupation.
13. Prior to the commencement of the development, the applicant shall submit to the local planning
authority, in writing, a scheme detailing acoustic protection measures for each faēade of the
building to protect future occupants from the effects of external noise from both road and rail
traffic. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details in full prior to the
first occupation of the building and shall be maintained thereafter.
14. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a scheme detailing security measures.
The scheme should include secure by design principles. Once agreed in writing, all security
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation.
15. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 15th January 2007; which shows a
revised apartment type of the 3-bed duplex apartment immediately adjacent to the vehicular
entrance on Ford Lane
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
3. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R008B Development-Building in vicinity
9. Standard Reason R013B Use of parking areas
10. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H8 and R2 of the Adopted UDP.
11. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
12. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
13. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
14. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
15. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
1st March 2007
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
2. The applicants attention is drawn to the advice provided by United Utilities regarding drainage
3. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Directorate of
Environmental Services (Tel: (0161) 793 2046)
4. Not withstanding the requirements of the conditions attached above the applicants attention is
drawn to the advice and requirements of Network Railway
5. The applicant is advise that any disused access points / footway crossings are to be made good
at the developers expense
6. In addition to the requirements of condition 13, the scheme shall consider both glazing and
ventilation specifications ensuring that the internal noise levels can comply with the
requirements of BS8233:1999. Details shall include the glazing specifications and also the
associated sound reduction index of proposed glazing. Facades facing the Railway Line or Ford
Lane shall be detailed separately including details of alternative acoustic ventilation methods to
minimise the need to open windows to achieve summer cooling or rapid ventilation.
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
77
1st March 2007
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
78
1st March 2007