PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
APPLICATION No:
06/53108/FUL
APPLICANT:
BH Three Ltd
LOCATION:
The Works Site Great Clowes Street Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 32 dwellinghouses and 23 apartments together with
associated car parking and construction of new and alteration
to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Broughton
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
At a meeting of the Panel on the 15th of March 2007 the Members deferred this application and
requested additional information relating to a proposed footpath from the development to the
existing children’s play area, landscaping, materials board, sustainable construction and recycling
and visuals.
In terms of a possible footpath link from the proposed development to the existing children’s play
area, the Police Architectural Liaison Advisor has been consulted and made the following
comments “The link to the play area should not be introduced to the scheme. Although the footpath
will make it easier for residents of this development to access the play area, the link will expose the
development to individuals with no legitimate reason to be there. It will make the communal
parking court and dwellings adjacent to the link particularly vulnerable. The situation will be
exacerbated by the introduction of the footpath at the northern end of the site which links the
development with Great Clowes Street/Camp Street.. These footpath links will form a short cut
through the development but are unlikely to generate sufficient footfall as to make them
self-policing. What they will do is expose the development to criminal elements who can pass
through easily, legitimately and anonymously.”
Having considered this advice and having regard to the desire to make appropriate links from a
development to local amenities I would therefore consider the introduction of a footpath link to be
contrary to Policy DES10 of the Unitary Development Plan.
The agent have been in contact with Contour Housing Association who have confirmed that they
would be interested in purchasing two of the units at a reduced commercial rate as stipulated by the
Housing association purchase requirements. The details of the affordable housing would be dealt
with as a part of a S106 agreement.
The applicant has provided additional information relating to sustainable construction and
recycling. The target has been to create a low energy design incorporating environmentally
friendly materials. The scheme would see the re-use of rainwater recycling within the building and
this will contribute to energy savings. Wherever possible natural ventilation will be provided at the
same time maximising natural daylight and reducing artificial lighting. In terms of materials it is
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
the intention to use recyclable timber framing for the properties. I have attached a condition
requiring details of sustainable construction techniques and recycling facilities to be provided.
Additional visuals have been submitted as requested by the Planning and Transportation
Regulatory Panel. A materials sample board has also be submitted and includes ivory rendering,
aluminium window sections, groove timber boarding and red bricks. I would consider the
submitted samples to be acceptable but have still attached a materials condition to ensure all details
of materials are submitted.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is bound by Upper Camp Street to the north, Great Clowes Street to the west,
Tenerife Street to the south and residential and commercial properties to the east including a
children’s play area. The site compromises of mostly vacant land with a commercial business
premises located in the southern eastern corner. The site is mostly overgrown with a number of self
seeded trees within its boundary. The site has recently been used for fly tipping. The site is located
immediately to the east of the Former Lowry High School which has an extant outline planning
permission for the demolition, conversion and redevelopment of 22.7 hectares of land and
buildings to provide mixed use development comprising residential (C3), school, community uses
(D1), assembly and leisure (D2), business (B1), retail (A1/A2), cafes, restaurants and public houses
(A3,A4,A5), car parking, public spaces and ancillary uses together with associated highways and
other works.. Directly to the north of the site is a development consisting of both dwellings and
apartments.
The proposal seeks full planning permission for the erection of 32 dwelling houses and 23
apartments. It would include the erection of one four storey apartment block and two further
apartment blocks located adjoining dwelling houses. One block would be three storey and one
would be four storeys in height. The dwelling houses would be in the form of rows of two, three,
four and five houses ranging from two-storey to four storeys in height. The scheme would include
the construction of a new vehicular access and both private and communal parking areas. The
proposed vehicular would be located on Tenerife Street.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted for the erection of 36 three and four storey dwellings with
associated vehicular access on the site excluding the commercial premises in May 2004
(03/47173/FUL)
Outline planning permission was granted for residential purposes of the site excluding the
commercial premises in April 2005 (05/50091/OUT)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to conditions relating to contaminated
land and a noise survey. Conditions have been attached accordingly.
United Utilities – No objection
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions relating to the existing and proposed
floor levels and land contamination. Conditions have been attached accordingly.
Police Architectural Liaison Advisor – made a number of comments relating to the lack of
natural surveillance to blocks A, B,C D and I. There appears to be no defensible space to the rear of
Block F. The application has been amended to incorporate the comments and additional secondary
windows have been inserted into the gables of the affected blocks.
Urban Regeneration Company – No comment
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No objections in principle however the site lies close
to a cluster of Roman period finds and a condition relating to an archaeological desk study has been
recommended.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 25th July 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 27th July 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
174 – 190 (evens), 167 – 173 (odds), The Community Centre Great Clowes Street
12 – 22 (evens), Lancashire Motor Bodies, North Western Commercials Upper Camp Street
2 – 6 (evens) 5 – 11 (odds) Tenerife Street
2 – 16 (evens) Perkins Avenue
1 – 10 and 12 Burland Close
2 – 6 (evens) Benson Close
Star House 11 Grove Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of objection in response to the planning 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:
Other policies:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, H1
Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision
Within New Housing Developments, ST11 Location of New
Development, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking
in New Development, EN14 Pollution Control, EN19 – Flood Risk
and Surface Water,DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours,
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1
L4
–
-
Regional Development Principles
Regional Housing Provision
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the density, 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; and whether the proposed level of parking is
acceptable. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
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. With regards to the principle of the
proposed development, the site is located within an area of mixed uses.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be considered
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
There is a commercial building located on part of the site. The site has two previous planning
permissions upon it both of which are extant I would therefore consider the re-development of the
site to be acceptable. Policy E5 is not relevant to this planning application due to the existing
commercial site not being:
an area with five or more adjacent business units;
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
a continuous site area of 0.5ha or greater; or
or having building(s) with a floor area of 5,000 square metres or greater.
Policy R1 states that the development of existing recreation land or facilities will not be permitted
unless;
(i)
have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity in terms of noise,
trafficgeneration, light pollution, hours of operation, visual amenity, or any
otherdisturbance;
(ii)
have an unacceptable impact on highway safety in terms of traffic
generation,parking or servicing;
(iii)
fail to make adequate provision for cyclists, pedestrians and disabled
people;
(iv)
have an unacceptable impact on the quiet enjoyment of the open
countryside;
(v)
have an unacceptable impact on sites or features of archaeological,
ecological, geological or landscape value; or
(vi)
have an unacceptable impact on existing recreation facilities.
This site has been identified in the Greenspace Strategy as a 'greenspace site'. This was following
the audit of wider greenspace areas in the city, which included derelict and underused land - the
regeneration/development status of some of these sites was not necessarily known at the time of the
audit.
The site has not been identified as necessary for meeting any of the standards set by the Greenspace
Strategy (i.e. as a proposed site for any of the categories of open space provision). For this site to be
developed for housing, it must be clearly shown that the site is surplus to recreation requirements
and is not needed to meet the standards of the SPD.
The existing condition of the site is poor, however, PPG17 confirms that the current condition of a
site should not lead to an assumption that the site is surplus to recreation requirements and all other
potential recreation uses of the site should be considered prior to concluding the site should be
developed.
The site is located adjacent to an existing LEAP (Pegwell Drive), and is within the catchment for
Albert Park, as an existing LEAP, NEAP, Neighbourhood Park and District Park and a potential
Local Semi-Natural Greenspace. The site is also located within the catchment of Kersal Dale as an
existing Strategic Semi-Natural Greenspace.
Broughton and Blackfriars only currently meets 29-20% of the NPFA standard for Youth and Adult
Facilities. The Greenspace Strategy confirms that a full range of adult and youth facilities should be
available within each Community Committee Area. It explains, however, that it is expected that
most facilities would be located within existing recreation sites, such as parks and NEAP, rather
than new sites being specifically identified for them.
Therefore, it can be concluded that this site is not required to meet any of the standards set by the
Greenspace Strategy SPD. The site has limited current recreation value, at most providing the
potential for a landscaped area. Broughton and Blackfriars currently have a substantial over
provision (318-255%) of the NPFA standard for informal open space - the replacement of this type
of provision would not be required.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
The site has an outstanding planning permission for housing development which did not include
any compensation for the loss of greenspace, and this must be taken into account when considering
the protection of the greenspace through UDP policy R1.
I consider that the development of this site for housing would be acceptable on the grounds of UDP
Policy R1(iii) since it can be clearly demonstrated that the site is surplus to recreational
requirements and the development would facilitate the wider regeneration of the local area; and
because the principle of housing development has already been established by the previous
planning approvals and the site has limited recreation function, being a cleared brownfield site.
Housing Mix and Density
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. Criterion 2 states that new
housing development be built at an appropriate density. On sites within or adjoining Mixed use
Areas the density shall be no less than 50 per hectare. The proposed density would be 70 dwellings
per hectare, given that the extant permission proposes 63 dwellings per hectare I would consider
this to be an appropriate density for this location.
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.
SPG Policy HOU1 states within the rest of Central Salford (i.e. excluding the Regional
Centre Broughton Park, Claremont, and the northern part of Weaste and
Seedley), 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 application site is within 1.5miles of Manchester City Centre
and there a number of existing and proposed community facilities within the area. Given
that 59% of the proposed units are in the form of dwellings and there are a number of
recently approved apartment schemes within the vicinity I would consider an element of
apartments to be acceptable in this location
SPG Policy HOU2 states that where apartments are proposed they should provide a broad
mix of dwelling sizes in terms of the number of bedrooms and the amount useable
floorspace, 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 a balanced mix of
dwellings have been provided.
Five bedroom houses – 6 (10%)
Four bedroom houses – 18 (33%)
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Three bedroom houses – 7 (14%)
Two bedroom houses – 1 (2%)
Two double bedroom apartments – 20 (36%)
Two bedroom apartments (one single, one double) – 3 (5%)
The floorspace of the apartments ranges from 61m2 to 75m2 , ensuring 100% of the the
apartments are in excess of 57m2. The floor area of the dwellings ranges from 70m2 to 170m2.
SPG Policy HOU3 supplements UDP Policy H4, by requiring 20% of proposed dwellings to be
affordable in developments of 25 or more dwellings, with provision preferred on site. 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 SPD. As mentioned part of the site has extant planning permission for the
erection of dwellings none of which would be provided in the form of affordable housing. The
applicant has agreed to provide affordable housing units on the element of the site which
currently houses the commercial buildings. This element of the site would accommodate ten
dwellings, therefore two units of affordable housing will be provided within the scheme in
accordance with the above policy. The details of the type and tenure of housing will be dealt
with as part of the S106 agreement.
Design, Scale and Massing
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.
Adopted 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.
”
“
Policy LBDC 2of the Lower Broughton Design Code states that the design of new development
should respond to the emerging character of the character area within which it is located, as
identified in the SPD, and should contribute to the character of Lower Broughton as a whole.
Policy LBDC 3 of the Lower Broughton Design Code states that design must respond to existing
and potential views within Lower Broughton.
The scheme has three main frontages. The Upper Camp Street frontage would consist of two blocks
of three dwellings. Plot 22 would be four storeys in height whilst plots 17 – 21 would be 3 storeys
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
in height. On the corner of Upper Camp Street and Great Clowes Street would be a four storey
apartment block. The two adjacent blocks further along Great Clowes Street would consist of one
block of five dwellings (plots 12 – 16) with the middle dwelling 2 storeys in height and the
surrounding dwellings 3 storeys in height. The other block of three dwellings would be 3 storeys in
height (plots 9-11). On the corner of Great Cloes Street and Tenerife Street would be a three storey
block of apartments adjoining two dwellings (Apartments 1-3 and plots 7 and 8), one would be 3
storeys in height and the other adjacent to the proposed vehicular access would be four storeys in
height. On the opposite side of the proposed vehicular access fronting Tenerife Street would be
two blocks of three dwellings. The proposed dwelling immediately adjacent to the proposed access
would be 4 storeys in height with the two remaining dwellings being 3 storeys in height (plots 4 -6).
Plots 1 and 2 are located directly to the rear of existing two storey properties on Burland Close and
would be 2 storeys in height whilst plot 3 would be 3 storeys in height. Within the site is a block of
4 storey apartments surrounded dwellings ranging from 2 – 3 storeys. Great Clowes Street slopes
from the corner with Upper Camp Street down towards Tenerife Street and beyond.
The main focal point of the development is the 4 storey building located on the corner of Upper
Camp Street and Great Clowes Street. To the north of Upper Camp Street is a recently
development site currently under construction with a range of three storey dwellings and four
storey apartment blocks. The proposed materials would be a combination of glazing, render and
brickwork. The proposed roof would be cantilevered projecting towards the city centre. The
remaining properties differ in style. The majority of proposed properties stand three storeys high
with unequal gables to minimise the impact of the properties. By varying the eaves and ridge
heights along with varying pitches the proposed design breaks up the building mass and roof form.
Balconies are located on various properties and at different levels. The proposed materials for the
site are that of the four storey apartment block. I would consider the proposed design to be
acceptable in this location and have attached a condition requesting samples of materials to be
submitted to ensure a high quality design in accordance with Policy DES1 and the Lower
Broughton Design Code.
In accordance with Policy DES11 and LBDC1, the applicant has submitted a design statement
which outlines design concepts.
As mentioned the only vehicular access to the site is from Tenerife Street. The design excludes
private driveways along Great Clowes Street and maximises pedestrian activity with the formation
of secure routes from Great Clowes Street. Although there is some private parking within the
cartilage of dwellings the majority of parking is formed within communal areas within the site to
the rear of the proposed properties front Great Clowes Street and within an internal courtyard I
would therefore consider the proposed development to be accessible to all in accordance with
Policy DES2.
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.
In terms of the impact of the proposal on the amenity of occupiers of existing properties the closest
residential dwellings are 1, 3 and 5 Burland Close. Plot 1 would be located beyond the rear garden
of these properties. The proposed Plot 1 would be two-storeys in height and would be located 13m
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
from the rear elevation of these properties. I would consider the level of separation to be acceptable
and would not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of existing
neighbour properties.
The internal relationships of the residential blocks within the development would provide an
appropriate level of separation and privacy in accordance the Councils normal separation distances.
Each dwelling would have a private garden area whilst the proposed apartment blocks would have
communal amenity space.
I would consider the proposed development to provide potential users with an adequate level of
amenity and would not have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
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.
A number of amendments have been made to the proposal to ensure that the development
discourages crime. All the communal parking areas are overlooked by the surrounding proposed
properties. The existing play area located on the adjacent development can be observed from side
windows introduced into the gable of Plot 32. The issues raised by the Police Architectural Liaison
Advisor have been incorporated into the scheme and although I do not have full details of the
proposed boundary treatment for each of the properties the applicant has stated that this will be
done to Secure by Design standards and I have attached a condition to requiring details of all the
boundary treatments prior to commencement of development.
As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of
designing out crime.
Car Parking
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 proposal would provide 19 paring spaces directly associated with individual plots. There
would be a further 33 communal spaces including two disabled spaces.
I have also attached a condition requiring the provision of cycle stores for the apartments.
I am satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable in this location and that the
proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety
Open Space Provision
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open
space within housing developments.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
The applicant has agreed to make a contribution towards the provision of open space in the area, in
accordance with the above policy. The amount would be £122,040 based on 226 bed spaces. This
is in accordance with Adopted policy H8 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on
open space.
Other Issues
There are a number of self seeded trees within the site all of which would be removed as part of the
development. The Consultant aroriculturalist has inspected the trees and is of the opinion that the
trees do not present a valuable asset and would not be worthy of protection.
Policy CH5 states that where planning permission is granted for sites that that will affect known or
suspected remains of archaeological importance, planning conditions will be imposed to secure the
recording and evaluation of the remains and, if appropriate, their excavation and/ or removal prior
to the commencement of development.
The Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit –have been consulted on the application and have no
objections in principle however have commented that the site lies close to a cluster of Roman
period finds a condition relating to an archaeological desk study has been attached to ensure that the
proposal would be in accordance with Policy CH5.
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 £122,040. This would contribute to the provision of open space in the vicinity.
A number of amendments have been incorporated into the scheme including the omission of four
dwellings and the reduction in height of plots 1 and 2to ensure the protection of amenity for
adjacent residents. The omission of a communal garden to secure private garden areas to ensure
that the area does not attract anti-social behaviour.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purpose is
acceptable ;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 also satisfied that the level of on site parking is acceptable.
and. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted
Unitary Development Plan and there are no material considerations, which outweigh this finding. I
therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions 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
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment and affordable housing.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of development / demolition is commenced, the applicant shall
secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological work including excavation of
trenches in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which shall have first been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The archaeological
investigation shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the
nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall
include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and
controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions
on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and
landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and
property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained
within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the
site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the Local Planning Authority.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the external elevations including walls and roofs 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.
5. Unless otherwise agreed in writing 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.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
6. Unless otherwise agreed in writing the development shall not be commenced unless and until a
scheme detailing all the following matters including; sustainable construction techniques;
natural ventilation techniques; sustainable urban drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar
heat gain and use of renewable energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability
matters have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior
to the first occupation of any dwelling the approved scheme shall be installed and shall
thereafter be retained and maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
7. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the car parking provision
shall be laid out and completed in accordance with Drawing No. 510-204B prior to first
occupation of any of the residential units.
8. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority unless otherwise agreed in writing. The
approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
9. 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.
10. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority the applicant shall submit for written approval an assessment
of noise likely to affect the application site. This assessment should follow PPG24 guidelines
towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road & rail network including Great Clowes
Street and any other local noise sources which are deemed significant on the site. The
assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures which may be determined appropriate
to reduce the impact of noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the requirements
of BS8233 for internal noise levels. Consideration shall also be given to achieving adequate
Summer Cooling and Rapid Ventilation. If deemed necessary, alternative ventilation measures
shall be identified and incorporated into the noise assessment report. Once agreed, all identified
noise control measures shall be implemented and thereafter retained.
11. 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 unless otherwise agreed. Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full
prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
12. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of bin
stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority unless
otherwise agreed. Such approved bin stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available
for use before the development is brought into use.
13. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of
cycle stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
unless otherwise agreed. Such approved cycle stores shall thereafter be constructed and made
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
available for use before the development is brought into use.
14. Prior to the commencement of development details of the existing and proposed floor levels
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved
levels shall be implemented prior to first occupation,
15. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning
Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a
commuted sum as required by Policy H8 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development
Plan and Salford Greenspace Strategy 2006 will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for
open space and recreation space purposes and for local environmental improvements or such
purposes as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the provision of affordable
housing in accordance with Policy H4 of the Unitary Development Plan.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To ensure the site is investigated for archaeological remains in accordance with policy CH5 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
6. In order to reduce pollution in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
7. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage
8. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
9. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
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. To encourage alternative sustainable modes of transport in accordance with policy A10 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
14. Reason: In order to reduce the risk of flooding in accordance with policies EN19 and EN20 of
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
the Unitary Development Plan and policy 9 of the Salford City Council Supplementary
Planning Document, Lower Broughton Design Code
15. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space, recreation space and
affordable housing for future occupiers in accordance with policies H4, H8 and R2 of the
Adopted UDP.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
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. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Environment
Directorate (Tel: (0161) 737 0551
4. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
5. Please note the permsision realtes to the following plans:
Drawing No.
510-204C
510-206C
510-210A
510-211B
510-212B
510-213B
510-214C
510-215C
510-216A
510-217
510-217A
510-219
510-220A
510-221B
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
510-222B
510-223B
510-224B
510-225A
510-226B
510-227
APPLICATION No:
07/54015/FUL
APPLICANT:
Peel Investments (North) Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Off Pacific Way, Near To Junction With Daniel Adamson
Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of six - two storey office units comprising 4092sq.m
floorspace together with associated landscaping, car parking
and construction of new, and alteration to existing vehicular
access
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
At a meeting of the Panel on the 15th of March 2007 the Members deferred this application to
consider amendments to the design of the office buildings that would front onto the proposed
Broadway Link and the Manchester Ship Canal.
With regards to design, the applicants have submitted amended plans. The glazed panelling on the
rear elevation of block A, which fronts on the proposed Broadway link, has been revised in order
that it projects 0.6m from the main rear elevation of the building. A 0.6m wide projecting glazed
panel has been added into the gable end of block B which fronts onto the site of the proposed
Broadway Link. Similarly a 0.6m wide, projecting glazed panel is proposed within the gable end of
block D which fronts onto the Manchester Ship Canal. The rear elevation of block E, which runs
parallel to the Manchester Ship Canal has been revised with the glazed panelling being replaced by
two glazed columns, that project 0.6m from the main wall of the unit. These columns add interest
and break up the elevation.
As a result of these amendments, I am of the opinion, that the proposed development better
addresses the proposed Broadway Link and The Manchester Ship Canal and makes the
development suitable for this gateway location.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
This application relates to a vacant, 0.7-hectare site located at the junction of Pacific Way and
Daniel Adamson Road. Access to the site is via Daniel Adamson Way. Commercial units occupy
the land to the east and west of the site and the Manchester Ship Canal occupies the land to the
south of the site. The plot of land immediately to the north of the site is currently vacant. Beyond
this vacant plot the North West Water Authority Sewage Works are found.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of six two-storey B1
office units offering a combined total of 4092sqm of office floorspace
together with associated parking (100 spaces) and landscaping. In
order to allow access to the proposed office park a new access would
be created off Pacific Way. In total 100 car parking spaces would be
provided throughout the site, seven of which are suitable for use by
disabled persons.
CONSULTATIONS
Trafford MBC – no objection subject to HSE consultation
Manchester Ship Canal Company – no comments received to date.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – no comments received to date.
Environment Agency – no objections.
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to the attachment of
conditions requiring a site investigation and a green travel plan.
Health and Safety Executive – Do not advise against granting planning permission.
United Utilities – No objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on the 18th of January 2007
A site notice was published on the 1st of February 2007.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
5 Pacific Way
Osprey House, Pacific Way
North West Water Authority Sewage Works, James Corbett Road
1 and 7 Broadway
500, 510, 520,530, 540, 550, 560 Broadway
Tarmac Construction, Daniel Adamson Way
Pioneer Concrete UK, Daniel Adamson Way
REPRESENTATIONS
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3: Quality in New Developments.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other Policies :
E4/15: Sites for Employment Development.
DES1: Respecting Context.
DES6: Waterside Development
DES7: Amenity of Neighbours and Users.
DES10: Design and Crime
DES11: Design Statements.
A1:
Transport Assessments and Travel Plans.
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments.
EN17: Pollution Control.
ST3: Employment Supply.
ST11: Location of New Development.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the design of the proposed development is acceptable; whether
the proposed level of parking is acceptable; and whether the proposal complies with the relevant
policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
Principle –
Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land.
Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and
conversion of existing buildings been the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
Policy ST3 of the adopted UDP seeks to encourage a good range of local employment
opportunities.
Policy E4 allocates a number of sites as appropriate sites for employment development.
Policy EC8 of the Regional Spatial Strategy relates to town centres and the location of new retail,
leisure and office development. It states that office development that generates a significant number
of trips should be directed towards locations within or adjoining main city or district centres and
near to major public transport interchanges within urban areas.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
PPS6 advocates a sequential approach to site selection stating that new retail, leisure and office
development should be located within existing centres. It goes on to state that in the absence of any
appropriate site in established centres, edge of centre sites are considered most appropriate
followed by out of centre sites, with preference being given to locations that are accessible, close to
an existing centre and have a high likelihood of forming links with the centre. PPS6 states that this
sequential approach should be applied to all development proposals for sites that are not in an
existing centre nor allocated in an up-to-date development plan document.
The development site is allocated in Policy E4 of the newly adopted UDP as a site that is suitable
for employment development. All the sites considered within Policy E4 are considered to accord
with the sequential approach set out in PPS6, Policy ST11 (Location of new development) and be in
accordance with Policy ST3, which relates to employment supply.
Policy A9 states that development that would prejudice the construction of the Broadway Link will
not be permitted.
The site is located to the south of the proposed Broadway Link. The proposed development would
not prejudice the construction of the link as it would not encroach upon the land required for the
links construction or the landscaping required in association with the link.
Overall I am therefore satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in land use terms.
Design
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality
and appropriateness of proposed materials.
The proposed development involves the erection of six office units, A to F, around a central parking
courtyard. Each of the buildings would vary slightly in size and design however all the buildings
respect a common theme. The units would be two storeys in height measuring 6.4m to the eaves and
10m to the ridge. The proposed office units would be constructed using a mixed palette of
materials including brickwork, metal roofs and focal entrance points utilising tinted glass, all of
which contribute to the modern design and distinctiveness of the proposal, and help to add interest
to the street-scene, which is dominated by two storey high industrial sheds and commercial
buildings.
The northern portion of the site lies adjacent to the site of the proposed Broadway Link. In order to
ensure that the proposed development would provide an active frontage to the link road, or at least
what would appear as an active frontage, feature glazed panels have been inserted into the rear
elevation of unit A and the front elevation of unit B which occupy the northern most section of the
site. These units also have windows in all elevations. I am satisfied that these details would ensure
that these buildings would have a positive impact upon the visual amenity of the area as the
buildings will add value and quality to the built environment and they would be fitting for a
prominently located site at the gateway to the Quays.
I have attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and
approved prior to the commencement of development and I am satisfied that this will ensure that
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
they will be of a suitably high quality and in keeping with the surrounding area.
Policy DES6 relates to waterside development and considers that all new development adjacent to
the Manchester Ship Canal will be required to facilitate pedestrian access to, along and, where
appropriate, across the waterway by the provision of: a safe, attractive and overlooked waterside
walkway, accessible to all and at all times of the day, where this is compatible with the commercial
role of the water way; pedestrian links between the waterside walkway and other key pedestrian
routes.
Policy R5 relates to the Countryside Access Network. The section of the Manchester Ship Canal
that runs to the rear of the application site is allocated in the adopted UDP as a proposed strategic
recreation route that would facilitate access for pedestrians and cyclists to the waterside. According
to Policy R5 planning permission will not be granted for any development that would result in the
permanent obstruction or closure of any part of the Countryside Access Network.
The rear elevation of block E and the side elevation of Block F front onto the Manchester Ship
Canal. In order that the development address the waterside, provides an attractive elevation to the
waterside and provides natural surveillance for the proposed strategic recreational route block E
contains a feature-glazed panel together with a series of large windows in the rear elevation.
Similarly block F contains a number of large windows in the side elevation that fronts onto the
waterside.
In order to facilitate pedestrian access to the waterside it is also proposed to have a pedestrian
access gate leading from the development site onto the strip of land immediately to the rear of the
site that runs adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal. The provision of this pedestrian access would
ensure that the proposed development would not preclude access to the waterside as well as
ensuring that the proposal would not inhibit the creation of a strategic recreational route alongside
the Ship Canal.
In order that the development makes a positive contribution towards the council’s aspirations for
the creation of a canal side walkway and a strategic recreational route at the rear of the site in
accordance with Polices DES6 and R5 I recommend that a condition be attached to any approval
that requires the 9m wide strip of land adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal to be laid out as a
walkway and landscaped. This is possible as despite being outside the redline for the application
the land is owned by the Manchester Ship Canal Company a branch of Peel Holdings and
consequently the applicant has an interest in the land.
Access
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
According to the Councils maximum standards a maximum of 1 space
should be provided for every 35sqm of office floorspace created. The
proposed development would create 4092sqm of floorspace and
consequently a maximum of 117 parking spaces should be provided for
the proposed office park. It is proposed to provide 101 spaces, 7 of
which would be suitable for disabled persons. The level of parking
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
proposed is therefore in accordance with the Council’s maximum
standards.
The developer is also intending to provide cycle stores and motorcycle
parking. Full details have not been provided on the and therefore in
order ensure compliance with the Council’s standards I recommend that
conditions are attached that require full details of the proposed
cycle and motorcycle parking to be submitted and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of
development.
The proposed car parking and new access off Pacific Way would be laid
out in such a way that I do not have any objections to the proposed
development on highway safety grounds.
In order to encourage more sustainable forms of transport in
accordance with Policy A1 and PPG13 I recommend that a condition is
attached the requires a green travel plan to be drawn up and its
proposals implemented in order that schemes are schemes are put in
place to minimise car usage.
CONCLUSION
The proposed scheme would provide a suitable employment use in
accordance with the land use allocation in the UDP. I am of the opinion
that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted
UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this
finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved
subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the walls and roof 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
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
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. 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.
5. Within a period of three months of the occupation of the unit, the tenant/landlord shall
undertake a travel survey and this data will form part of a Travel Plan. Within a period of 6
months from the first date of occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the
written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall as a minimum include
the broad areas of actions, objectives and timescales for review and monitoring. Within twelve
months of occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the written approval
of the Local Planning Authority, which shall include a review of targets, measures, staff survey
data and a monitoring survey. Annually from the occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall
be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority for a period of 5 years
and then at a time agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the location, design and
construction of on-site parking facilities for cycles and motorcycles shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. These facilities shall be provided prior
to the first occupation of the development and thereafter made available at all times the
development is operational.
7. Prior to the first occupation of the office units hereby permitted the 101 car parking spaces
shown in the approved plan (MH481-02 Revision E) shall be constructed and marked out
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
within the curtilage of the site. The spaces shall be made available for future occupants of the
development hereby approved at all times whilst the premises are in use
8. Prior to the first occupation of the office units hereby permitted, the new vehicular access to the
development, as shown on the approved plan (MH481-02 Revision E), shall be completed and
made available for use.
9. No external lighting shall be installed unless and until a scheme has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented and thereafter in accordance with the approved details.
10. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority the finished floor levels of
the buildings hereby approved shall be a minimum of 300mm above the adjacent road level.
11. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision of a walkway,
associated landscaping and street furniture on the land to the rear of the site, adjacent to the
Manchester Ship Canal shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. No part of the site shall be occupied until the approved scheme has been
implemented.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
5. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with
Policy A1 of the UDP.
6. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
7. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
8. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
9. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
10. In order to reduce flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the adopted UDP.
11. In order to ensure access to the waterfront in accordance with policies DES6 and R5 of the
adopted UDP.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Note(s) for Applicant
1. In order to satisfy the requirements of condition 3 the treatment to gable end of unit A should of
a particularly high quality. The provision of some form of public art in this area would be
welcomed.
2. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the following amended plans:
Colour presentation Sheet (Independent scales @ A1)
Site Plan - MH481-02 rev F
Unit A Ground and First Floor Plans - MH481-03 rev D
Unit A Elevations - MH481-04 rev.D
Unit B Ground and First Floor Plans - MH481-05 rev D
Unit B Elevations - MH481-06 rev.D
Unit D Ground and First Floor Plans - MH481-09 rev.C
Unit D Elevations - MH481-10 rev.C
Unit E Ground and First Floor Plans - MH481-11 rev.D
Unit E Elevations - MH481-12 rev.D
APPLICATION No:
07/54178/REM
APPLICANT:
Peel Media Limited
LOCATION:
Land At Quay Point Off Broadway Salford Quays Salford
PROPOSAL:
Details of scale, external appearance and landscaping pursuant
to outline planning permission 06/53168/OUT for the erection
of 371 residential units and 46,475sq m of commercial
accommodation in three mixed use buildings referred to as A, B
and C. Building A to comprise of a part 8, part 26 storey
building to provide 176 residential units (C2) and 14,325sq m of
office accommodation (B1) and 650 sq m of retail
accommodation. Building B to comprise of a part 7, part
22-storey building to provide 195 residential units (C2) and
11,770sq m of office accommodation and 600sq m of retail
accommodation. Building C to comprise of a 7-storey building
to provide 19,130 sq m of office accommodation and studio
space (B1).
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an area of land within Salford Quays previously granted outline planning
consent (ref 06/53168/OUT). The area to which the outline application relates is known as Quays
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Point and is located to the north of Dock 9. The site subject to the outline application is bounded to
the north by Broadway, to the south and west by Manchester Ship Canal and Dock 9 and to the east
by the three NV buildings and a building which is currently under construction by City Lofts.
This is a reserved matters application for scale, external appearance and landscaping, which relates
to a smaller area of the outline application site and forms part of phase one of the development.
The area of land to which this application relates is the southern corner of the original site and
comprises of three buildings, referred to as buildings A, B and C. These buildings are intended to
form the main office accommodation for the BBC as well as some residential units. Below is a map
identifying the key areas referred to within this report.
7
7
4
2
6
7
5
1
Building A
Building B
Building C
Media Street
Plaza Area
Studio Block
Security
Cordons
3
Building A
Building A is located on the western side of the site and is bounded to the southwest by the
Manchester Ship Canal, to the southeast by building C, to the northeast by a site identified within
the masterplan as a new studio block and to the northwest by a site identified for office and
residential development.
Building A is a part 8 storey, part 26 storey building to provide 176 residential units and 14,325sq
m of office accommodation. The residential element of the building would be located within the
26-storey part of the building on the northwest part of the site and the commercial element would be
provided within the 8-storey part of the building.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
The commercial element of the building would comprise of a canteen on the ground floor with two
retail units and associated servicing areas; the upper floors would contain office space.
It is proposed that access to the office area of the building would be via an entrance on the proposed
‘Media Street’ that is the first in a series of radial streets running north to south from Broadway and
the dock edge. Entrance to the residential area of the building is proposed on the northern part of the
southwestern elevation facing the Manchester Ship Canal. Further entrances are proposed on the
northern elevation, which are intended to provide access to servicing areas, refuse points and cycle
storage.
Building B
Building B is separated from the other buildings by a proposed studio block which bounds the site
to the west, the south of the site is bounded by a proposed public plaza commonly referred to as
‘Media Square’, the northern and eastern aspects of the site are bounded by areas proposed for use
as a mixed use area.
Building B is a part 7, part 22 storey building that would provided 195 residential units and 11,770
sq m of office accommodation. The residential element of the proposal is contained within the 22
storey tower whilst the 7 storey element would contain commercial space.
The commercial element of the development would contain a reception area, plant rooms and a
retail unit on ground floor and open plan office space on the upper floors.
Access to the commercial space would be via a reception area in the southwestern corner of the
development. It is proposed that the residential element of the development would be located on the
northeastern corner of the development. Access for servicing would be provided along the northern
elevation of the building.
Building C
Building C is located on the southern corner of the site bounded to the south by the Manchester
Ship Canal and Salford Quays, to the northeast by an area of land identified as a future public plaza
and to the north west by Building A.
It is proposed that Building C would comprise of 19,130 sq m of office accommodation and studio
space.
Pedestrian access to the building would be via a reception area situated in the northeastern of corner
of the plot. It is proposed that a small service yard would be incorporated within the northern
elevation.
SITE HISTORY
In October 2006 outline planning consent was granted for the redevelopment of the land at Quays
Point for the redevelopment of business, studios and production space, residential, live work units,
retail, hotel and leisure facilities together with associated car parking highway works and open
space (ref: 06/53168/OUT)
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
In November 2003, planning permission was granted for the variation of conditions 1 and 3 on
application ref: 97/36749/OUT (development of land for offices, residential, retail, leisure, hotel
and car parking) to extend the date for the submission of reserved matters by a further five years to
31st October 2008 (ref: 03/46042/OUT).
In October 2000, outline planning permission was granted for the development of land at Harbour
City, Dock 9 And Broadway for offices (91,862sqm) residential, (600 units), retail (2,415sqm),
leisure (3,716sqm) and hotel (300 beds) (ref: 97/36749/OUT).
In January 1999, planning permission was granted for the use of the site as a temporary site storage
compound and the siting of storage containers (ref: 98/38480/COU).
CONSULTATIONS
Central Salford URC – strongly supports the application and considers that it closely accords with
the URC’s vision for mediacity:uk and have the following comments to make:
The proposals put forward for the commercial element of this application reflect the BBC’s
aspirations for high quality architecture, operational requirements and brand image.
The retails spaces will enliven the bridge approach and piazza areas.
In subsequent phases of the development, when confidence in the area has been established
a broader mix of accommodation sizes and types will be supported and welcomed.
Future application for the public realm proposals and other sites within Quays Point should
build upon this benchmark and help deliver the distinctive and vibrant new urban quarter.
City of Manchester – welcomes the principle of substantial new investment in media-related
developments in the City Region, but request that links with the city centre are actively pursued via
improvements to Metrolink and the joint Irwell City Park proposal.
Trafford MBC – no comments received to date
Manchester Ship Canal Company – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – No comments on scheme as present, but request that the unit
are consulted on any further landscaping details submitted
Greater Manchester Archaeology Unit – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Geology Unit - no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Unit - no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no comments received to date
Manchester Airport – no comments received to date
Natural England – Do not wish to comment on the proposal
Environment Agency – No objections
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
United Utilities – No objections
Grain Wharf Residents Association – no comments received to date
Grain Wharf Management Company - no comments received to date
RSPB - no comments received to date
Lancashire Wildlife Trust - no comments received to date
Director of Environmental Services – No objections to the current application provided that the
conditions attached to the outline application are adhered to.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 23rd February 2007
A press notice was displayed in the Salford Advertiser 1st March 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
All units at the Lowry Designer Outlet, The Quays, Salford, M50 3AG,
All units at Imperial Point, The Quays, Salford, M50 3RA,
All units at the NV Buildings, 100 The Quays, Salford, M50 3BE,
All units at the Metroplex Business Park, Broadway, Salford, M50 2UW,
All units Washington Centre, 104 - 106 Broadway, Salford, M50 2UW,
Unit N, 94 Northstage, Broadway, Salford, M50 2UW,
Unit L, 90 Northstage, Broadway, Salford, M50 2UW,
Unit M, 92 Northstage, Broadway, Salford, M50 2UW,
Unit 302 Gerber Technology, Metroplex Business Park, Broadway, Salford, M50 2UE,
Unit 400 First Floor, Metroplex Business Park, Broadway, Salford, M50 2UE,
2A South Stage, Michigan Avenue, Salford, M50 2GY,
2 Michigan Avenue, Salford, M50 2GY,
Unit 12, Michigan Avenue, Salford, M50 2GY,
Unit 8, Michigan Avenue, Salford, M50 2GY,
Unit 10, Michigan Park, Michigan Avenue, Salford, M50 2GY,
Raab Karcher, South Langworthy Road, Salford, M5 2PW,
30-54 Winnipeg Quay, Salford, M50 3TY,
City Lofts (Salford Quays), Town Centre House, Harrogate, Yorkshire
The Emerson Group, Emerson House, Heyes Lane, Alderley Edge, Cheshire, SK9 7LF,
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site Specific Policies: none
Other policies: DP1: Economy in the Use of Land and Building
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
DP2: Enhancing the Quality of Life
DP3: Quality in New Development
DP4: Promoting Sustainable Economic Growth and Competitiveness and Social
Inclusion
SD1: The North West Metropolitan Area Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
EC8: Town Centres – Retail, Leisure and Office Development
ER5: Biodiversity and Nature Conservation
ER7: Water Resources
EQ2: Air Quality
EQ3: Water Quality
T9: Demand Management
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/3 – Development in Mixed Use Areas (Salford Quays)
Other policies: ST1: Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST2: Housing Supply
ST3: Employment Supply
ST5: Transport Networks
ST6: Major Trip Generating Development
ST7: Mixed-Use Development
ST8: Environmental Quality
ST9: Retail, Leisure, Social and Community Provision
ST11: Location of New Development
ST12: Development Density
DES1: Respecting Context
DES2: Circulation and Movement
DES3: Design of Public Space
DES4: Relationship of Development with Public Space
DES5: Tall Buildings
DES6: Waterside Development
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
S2: Retail and Leisure Development Outside Town Centres, and Neighbourhood
Centres
S4: Amusement Centre and Food and Drink Uses
A1: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A2: Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A8: Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN10: Protection of Species
EN14: Derelict, Underused and Neglected Land
EN16: Contaminated Land
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
EN17: Pollution Control
EN18: Protection of Water Resources
EN22: Resource Conservation
R2: Provision of Recreational Land and Facilities
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP1: Regional Development Principles
RDF1: Main Development Locations
W1: Strengthening the Regional Economy
W2: Broad Locations for Regionally Significant Economic Development
W5: Retail Development
L4: Regional Housing Provision
L5: Affordable Housing
RT2: Management and Maintenance of the Highway Network
RT6: Parking Policy and Provision
RT7: A Regional Framework for Walking and Cycling
EM2: Remediating Contaminated Land
MCR1: Manchester City Region Priorities
MCR2: Regional Centre and Inner Areas of the Manchester City Region
There are a number of Supplementary Planning Documents and Planning Guidance which are also
relevant to the development of the site. These include Design and Crime SPD, Mediacity:UK and
Quays Point Planning Guidance and Housing Planning Guidance, all of which have been subject to
public consultation. The Planning Guidance is non-statutory and therefore is not included within
the Council’s Local Development Framework, although it is set within the context of the UDP and
emerging LDF. It does set out guidelines which in the case of Mediacity:UK Guidance have been
adopted by both Salford City Council and Trafford MBC, and which both authorities should have
regard to in the determination of planning applications.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of the redevelopment of this site has already been established through the granting
outline planning consent. Therefore the main issues for consideration with this application are
whether the proposed housing mix is acceptable, whether the level of office space proposed is in
accordance with the parameters set out within the outline application, whether the design of the
buildings is acceptable, whether the access and servicing arrangements to the proposed buildings
are acceptable, what the impact of the proposed development would have on the environment, the
impact of the development on the residential amenity of the future occupiers of the site and the
impact of the proposed development on the wider masterplan. Each of these issues will be dealt
with in turn below.
1. Housing Mix
The principle of residential development on this site was established during the outline application,
at that time the number of residential units across the site as a whole was limited by way of a
condition to 2,249 units. Across phase 1 this was limited to 296 units unless otherwise agreed in
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
writing by the local planning authority. The application proposes 371 units; the applicants have
submitted justification in regards to this increase in unit numbers.
The applicants maintains that given the outline permission sets an overall limit on the total amount
of residential development, in particular 1000 units in phase 2 and 953 units in phase 3, there is the
scope to bring forward some of this development into phase 1. They also state that the increased
amount of residential development in phase 1 will help to ‘frontload’ the development and will
assist in establishing a critical mass.
Since this application forms part of the first stage of development within Media City it is
considered that the increase of 75 residential units in phase 1 can be suitably absorbed within the
later phases of development. In addition the increase in units would not result in the parameters of
the Environmental Statement submitted with the outline application being exceeded. It is therefore
considered that the increase in unit numbers is acceptable in principle.
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (November 2006) states that local planning authorities
should ‘ensure that the proposed mix of housing on large strategic sites reflects the proportions of
households that require market or affordable housing and achieved a mix of households as well as a
mix of tenure and price’. It also identifies one of the key characteristics of a mixed community as a
variety of housing allowing for a mix of different households such as families with children, single
person households and older people.
Policy DP3 of the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy encourages the ‘provision of an appropriate
range of sizes and types of housing to meet the needs of all members of society’.
Policy H1 of the adopted UDP requires all new housing to ‘contribute towards the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size type, tenure and affordability’. In
regards to assessing whether a mix of dwellings on a site is appropriate the policy sets out a number
of criteria including the size of the site, its physical characteristics, the mix of dwellings in the
surrounding area, any special character of the area, accessibility of the site, any specific need for the
accommodation identified and any other relevant housing, planning or regeneration strategies
approved by the city council.
Since outline consent was granted on this site the Council has adopted its Housing Planning
Guidance (December 2006), which supplements policy H1 of the Adopted UDP. Although this
document does not form part of the statutory development plan it is considered that it should be
given substantial weight as it has been subject to a lengthy consultation process.
Policy HOU1 states that within the Regional Centre apartments will normally be the most
appropriate form of housing provision.
Policy HOU2 of the Guidance relates to the size of new dwellings, it 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. In particular it states that small
dwellings (studios and 1 bedroom units) should not predominate and a significant proportion of
three bedroom apartments should be provided wherever practicable. A significant proportion is
usually considered to be at least 10% of units. The reasoned justification of this policy expands
further and states the three bedroom apartments should be provided in a mix of locations and not
just in the form of penthouses, in order to ensure that they are affordable.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
The reasoned justification of policy HOU2 provides further clarification as to the size of proposed
dwellings. It is considered at least 50% of units in new developments should have a floorspace and
layout that makes them adaptable to changing needs; typically this is accepted as being 57 sq m and
above.
Both policies H1 of the UDP and HOU2 of the housing planning guidance state that alternative
approaches on individual sites may be permitted where it can be demonstrated by the applicant that
there are specific circumstance that justify this and that regard is had to criteria A-H of policy H1.
The Mediacity:uk and Quays Point: Salford Quays and Trafford Wharfside Planning Guidance
includes policy MC:UK 1 which relates to the mix of uses at Quays Point. Part 3 of this policy
envisages that new residential activity will consist predominantly of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartment
dwellings, however it states that innovative approaches to the provision of suitable high density
family accommodation forms part of the mix.
Both buildings A and B contain residential units; the proposed composition of these residential
units is set out below.
Unit Type
Studio
1 Bed
2 Bed
3 Bed
Building A
(No. Units)
67
23
84
2
Total
176
(Percentage)
38 %
13 %
48 %
1%
Building B
(No. Units)
40
44
108
3
(Percentage)
21 %
23 %
55 %
2%
195
In regards to the size of the proposed dwellings, within building A 65 of the 176 units would be
over 57 sq m, this equates to 37% of dwellings. Within building B 111 of the 195 units would be
over 57 sq m equating to 57% of the dwellings. Overall 48% of the units would be over 57 sq m in
size.
As requested the applicants have revised the proposed mix during the course of the application and
have provided further information regarding the housing mix on the site in the form of ‘Housing
Mix – Planning Response’ by S Wright Ltd and a ‘ Report on Salford Housing Market as at
February 2007’ by King Sturge LLP.
Having regards to policy H1 and the adopted Housing Planning Guidance the applicants have
provided the following justifications as to why they consider the mix proposed within buildings A
and B to be appropriate:
The size and scope of the Media City development as a whole ensures that a balanced mix
of residential units can be provided across the site.
The King Sturge report identifies a strong demand for smaller units in Salford Quays,
relating to the desire to live in the area at an affordable price
The mix of types and sizes of units have been revised since the applications submission in
order to incorporate some 3 bedroom units and to ensure that no less than 10% of the total
number of units will be designed to provide flexibility for future modification.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
As the apartments are to be located at the very hub of media city buildings A and B are
likely to be particularly attractive to young professionals who want to live very close to
their employment and who would seek smaller units.
In addition to the above points the submitted King Sturge Report also makes the following
statements:
The majority of new purchases within the Salford market are by first time buyers, young
professionals and young families.
The average salary of people who live or work within Salford Quays is such that
affordability of larger apartments are out of the majority of peoples price range and
therefore there is a large demand for smaller units.
Within the last 12 months King Sturge have received around 2000 new applicants
registering for apartments within Manchester City Centre, only 6 of which were for 3 bed
apartments
Demand from families for apartments is restricted to very young families with one child
under the age of 5 and these enquiries are for two bedroom units not three.
The expansion of Salford Quays through Mediacity will help to grow the area however it
will not suddenly create a demand for 3 bedroom apartments. It is anticipated that demand
will be for one and two bedroom units as people are attracted to the new media sector for
employment.
I consider that the argument put forward by the applicants regarding the lack of demand for larger
apartments, is more down to an issues of affordability of the larger apartments rather than a lack of
demand and therefore give limited weight to the evidence provided. It was considered at the outline
consent stage that significant benefits arising from the redevelopment of the entire site outweighed
the need to secure affordable housing on the site.
I consider the mix of units proposed as part of this application falls someway short of the
requirement of the Housing Planning Guidance, however I am satisfied that the mix of units put
forward as part of this development will enable the ‘prime pumping’ of the commercial element of
this development. It is also considered likely that the residential element proposed as part of this
development will mainly attract young professionals where smaller units may be more suitable.
As future phases develop on the wider site the local planning authority will be mindful of the
provision within this first reserved matters in terms of how it will apply the Guidance across the rest
of the site,
It is there fore considered that the housing mix proposed will enable the front loading of
development at this first phase, but will not restrict the local planning authority’s power to ensure
that a more appropriate mix is put forward across the later phases of the site.
It is considered that the size of units proposed within this development; especially within the 2 and
3 bed units that range from 62-84 sq m provide flexibility for the future and a choice of layouts for
potential occupants. Although policy HOU2 seeks 50% of units to be above 57 sq m it is
considered that the 48% proposed by the applicants is acceptable in principle.
In conclusion I am satisfied that the mix of size of dwellings being proposed on this site is
appropriate for its location and its role in the wider consent and therefore accords with policy H1.
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
2. Level of Commercial Development within the site
Office
The principle of office accommodation was established in the grant of outline planning consent, the
number of total office space for phase 1 is 58,623 sq m, and this current application proposes
46,475 sq m of office space.
Condition 4 of the outline planning consent states that the figure provided on page 3 of the
Addendum to the Environmental Statement (entitled Response to Initial Planning and Design
Comments, September 2006 prepared by Peel Media Ltd) should not be exceeded unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Condition 4 of the outline consent sets out a limit within Phase 1 for 38,529 sq m of BBC office
space as well as an additional 20,094 sq m of offices. The current application includes provision for
46,475 sq m of office space for use by the BBC. This clearly exceeds the limit anticipated during
the outline application; the applicant has stated that although there has been an increase in office
space for the BBC the increased provision is still within the overall office limit set out within phase
one. Therefore the impact has already been taken into consideration within the parameters of the ES
and can be suitably controlled.
I am satisfied that this increase in office space for the BBC would not have an adverse impact on the
wider masterplan and that any potential impacts are suitable controlled by conditions attached to
the outline application.
Retail
The principle of retail development on the site was established in the granting of planning consent,
the proposed 650 sq m of retail space proposed as part of this application is within the 1,858 sq m
upper limit set for phase one as a whole.
It is not known at this stage who the potential end users of the retail units would be and therefore at
this time open retail consent is sought. Condition 16 of the outline application requires that any
proposals for A3, A4 or A5 uses shall be accompanied by schemes including full details of the fume
extraction system and food preparation areas to be approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
No such details have been submitted as part of this application, however the applicants have stated
that Faber Maunsell who are commissioned by the applicant in respect of mechanical and electrical
services have been instructed to continuously review the issue of fume extraction measures and to
develop solutions which will have minimum impact on the external appearance of the buildings.
The applicant has also stated that in the event that a food/ drink operator is attracted to the
development, then the applicant will specify within the tenant user agreement that any discharges
(both acoustically and to eliminate odours and grease) be treated by the introduction of terminal
pre-filtration and/ or activated carbon treatment.
I am satisfied that the proposed retail element falls within the parameters set out in the outline
planning consent and therefore is acceptable.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
3. Design
Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect the
positive character of the local area in which it is situated and contribute towards a local identity and
distinctiveness.
Policy DES4 outlines that development that adjoins public space shall be designed to have a strong
and positive relationship with that space.
Policy DES5 outlines a number of circumstances where tall buildings will be permitted, including:
where the scale of the development is appropriate to its location; the location is highly accessible by
public transport, walking and cycling; the buildings would positively relate to and interact with the
public realm; the buildings would be of the highest quality, would make a positive addition to the
skyline and would not detract from important views; there would be no unacceptable
overshadowing or overlooking; there would be no unacceptable impact on microclimate,
telecommunications activity, aviation safety; and the development would be consistent with other
UDP policies.
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 the submission of a design statement with all major applications explaining
how the development takes account of the need for good design, the design principles and design
concept and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, density, scale, visual appearance
and landscaping, the relationship of the development to its site and the wider context and how the
development will meet the Council’s design objectives.
In accordance with condition 34 of the outline application and policy DES11 the applicant has
submitted a design statement detailing the design principles and concepts of the development, how
such concepts and principles are reflected in the proposals and the relationship of the development
to the site as a whole and to the wider context.
The current application proposes a trio of buildings of a similar style that have been designed to be
read as a family of buildings. In addition Building C forms part of a separate trio of buildings with
the Lowry and the Imperial War Museum.
Within the design and access statement of the original outline application, the southern corner of
this site where the proposed Building C is located was identified as the location for a potential
landmark building. It was stated that this ‘landmark’ status would ‘achieve its presence through
contemporary design and location rather than massing and scale’.
From the beginning of the design process it has been apparent that Building C is not intended to
compete with the architectural complexity of the Lowry and the Imperial War Museum, this is
explained further within the design and access statement submitted with the application:
‘Our initial thoughts when considering the appearance and layouts for these buildings was that
they should be as simple and flexible as possible. Whilst acknowledging the importance of the
location, particularly of Block C, these buildings should take a more low-key and elegant approach
in their appearance than their immediate neighbours’
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
The future occupants of the building also had an input in the design of the building and in particular
were concerned that the buildings appeared efficient and transparent to the public. This perceived
change in emphasis away from one distinct building on the corner of the dock, to a trio of buildings
has also been informed by the emergence of the design of the proposed studio block and public
plaza area which are to be subject to later reserve matter applications. Indeed the proposed Studio
block is now to play a much more important role as the public face of the BBC and Media City as
well as being the main focus of the public square/ plaza area.
The desire that the buildings be seen as a trio of buildings has resulted in 3 distinct faēade types
being used across the commercial elements of the buildings, with each faēade having a different
function. The facades are designed to add interest to the buildings as well as offering practical
screening and shading, a brief description of each of type is described briefly below:
Type 1 – has been designed to be used in areas where little shading is required and is designed in
such a way as to create a sense of transparency between the internal office space of the buildings
and the external public areas. It is proposed that the faēade will comprise of a series of glazed
panels, varying in translucency arranged in a systematic pattern. The floors will be separated by an
opaque glazed panel and small horizontal fins are interspersed throughout the faēade creating an
element of visual interest.
Type 2 – has been designed specifically for aspects on the southern elevations of the building which
will require shading from the sun. This faēade also plays an important role in maintaining the
energy efficiency of the building by reducing the amount of sunlight entering the southern
elevations. It contains the basic glazed elements of type 1 and introduces aluminium sun shading
panels, which can be controlled so as to limit or increase the amount of sunlight entering the faēade.
Type 3 – has been designed for the ‘back of house’ areas of the development. It is proposed that the
areas in which this faēade is used will have a more masonary appearance but will maintain the
modular character of the rest of the development. The modular elements are to be comprised of an
aluminium double glazed window and polished pre-case concrete panels.
Residential Faēade – The massing of both residential towers are intended to be distinctly different
however. However it is proposed that a common palette of materials are used to visually unite each
building. The materials of fair faced concrete and glazing are intended to complement those used on
the commercial element, although these are to be more fine grained in nature. Horizontal emphasis
is provided in the form of a glass balustrade and window sills and vertical emphasis is provided in
the form of aluminium rain-screen cladding of vertical panels and floor to ceiling windows in tower
A and ceramic louvres within tower B.
There are two key design issues that need to be considered as part of this reserved matters
application these are as follows:
The relationship of the three buildings on the wider urban landscape and the original
masterplan; and
The design of the individual buildings
Impact of the buildings on the wider urban landscape and the original masterplan
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
The design and access statement submitted with the application states that a key aspiration of the
original masterplan was that the urban grain of the Media City development should have a density
and variety of uses that would create a vibrancy within the area of a whole.
The designs of the three buildings are also designed in such a way as to reinforce the radial and
concentric geometry of the site. The palettes of materials used throughout the development have
been chosen to complement the surrounding water and elements of the Lowry and Imperial War
Museum.
All of the three buildings will be visible to the public on all sides due to the exposed nature of the
site and therefore the treatment of the ‘back of house’ areas including servicing yards, bin stores
and plant areas are considered to be very important. The individual design of each building is
addressed in more detail below.
The Design of Individual buildings
Building C
During the outline planning process Building C was put forward as being the key landmark
building within the site, forming part of a triangle of buildings with the Lowry and the Imperial War
Museum.
Building C is effectively a triangle shaped building with a central atrium creating a ‘doughnut’
effect. It is proposed that this central atrium will provide natural internal lighting to the building as
well as serving potentially as space for a small television studio. Building C has three distinct sides,
the northeastern elevation facing the future plaza area, the southwestern elevation facing
Manchester Ship Canal and the Imperial War Museum and a north western elevation facing
Building A.
At street level Building C is recessed providing a covered walkway around the entire building; at
the canal side of the building this forms a publicly accessible canal-side walkway. At roof level the
building comprises of a split plant area recessed from the main commercial faēade. It is proposed
that this plant area will be split by a horizontal aluminium flying canopy. On the submitted plans
the horizontal canopies which form a recurring feature within the three buildings are illustrated in a
variety of colours. Although shown on the plans no decision has been taken as to what the final
treatment of these canopies will be and therefore it is recommended that a condition be attached
requesting the final details of the finishing of these horizontal canopies to be agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
The northern end of Building C is designed to house the ‘back of house’ activities including
meeting rooms and storage and service areas. Since this part of the building will be used for private
uses or uses which require screening it is proposed that the faēade in this area will be based on the
principle of type 3. The ground floor area which acts as a service area will be a solid element made
from aluminium louvre cladding.
The northeastern elevation of the site faces the proposed public plaza and therefore is to be highly
visible to the general public and has been designed to offer a transparent face of the building and
will be predominantly based upon faēade type 2. It is intended that the internal uses within the
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
building such as small radio and television studios will be painted in a variety of bold colours
creating an element of visual interest when viewed from the public plaza.
The southwestern elevation will be the main elevation when viewed from both the Lowry and
Imperial War Museum and therefore has an important visual presence. It is proposed that on this
elevation a type 2 faēade form the basis of the design, maximising views for the internal users and
providing sun shading as well as creating a visually interesting faēade.
The end users of the proposed buildings require a large amount of plant and machinery in order to
operate efficiently. The approach taken in regards to limiting the impact of this machinery has been
to incorporate large concealed plant areas on the roofs of the commercial elements of the three
buildings.
In addition to the plant areas provided it is likely that further equipment such as satellites and
antenna will need to be positioned on the roof of building C. Although the potential for satellites
and antenna are illustrated on some of the plans, the exact number and location that will be required
has not yet been finalised by the BBC. I consider it necessary to impose a condition if the
application is granted consent requesting that further details relating to the location of satellites and
antenna are submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Building A
Building A was identified within the outline masterplan as forming one of four buildings stepping
up in scale along the waters edge to Broadway. Although it was not the intention that all four of
these building would be of the same design, Building A does have an important role to play in the
setting of the overall masterplan. Building A, along with building C also has an important role in
providing a pedestrian gateway to media city from Trafford via a proposed new pedestrian
footbridge which is to be subject to a later application.
Building A is made up of three distinct elements, a ground floor podium, 6 storeys of office and
plant accommodation and a residential tower. The ground floor podium area comprises of retail
elements at the southwestern and northeastern corners, the retail elements will have glazed facades
and will help create a sense of vibrancy at street level. The southeastern corner is occupied by the
reception area to the office element that will also be glazed. The ‘back of house’ and service areas
of the site are to be provided along the northern elevation.
At second floor level the commercial element of the building forms an ‘L’ shape wrapping round
the residential tower. The elevations to south and east of the site are proposed to be made up from a
type 2 faēade, the internal elevations facing the residential tower are to covered in a variety of
pre-cast concrete and aluminium louvre cladding to provide privacy to the residents and occupiers.
As with Building C, Building A needs to accommodate a considerable amount of plant and
equipment which is to be located at roof level, split by a horizontal aluminium canopy.
The residential tower is located on the northwestern corner of the plot alongside the canal edge. The
residential tower is curved in appearance and is orientated in such a way as to maximise the views
of the water as well as increasing the extent of southern and western facades. The buildings are also
orientated to face into the prevailing winds, minimising the potential for down drafts. At the top of
the tower the penthouse elements are set back and fully glazed adding a lightweight feel. The
elevation facing the commercial element is a mix of a solid aluminium cladding and glazing.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
As with Building C the ground floor element is set back providing a covered walkway to the retail
units as well as continuing the canal side walkway.
Building B
Building B is physically set apart from building A and C, however it is considered important by the
applicant the it can clearly be read in conjunction with the other buildings. There are two distinct
elements to building B, the commercial building and the residential tower element.
As with Buildings A and C the key areas of the ground floor on the southern and eastern elevation
comprise of a retail unit and the reception area for the office building. The northern elevation of the
building contains the more ‘ back of house’ uses including security rooms, refuse storage and
service areas. The internal area of the commercial element contains a large plant room. The first
floor level extends over the proposed reception area creating a colonnade similar to the covered
walkways found in building A and C.
Above first storey the commercial element forms a distinct ‘L’ shape facing the proposed public
open space up to sixth floor level, at the sixth floor level the office element continues vertically on
the western elevation providing a visual break between the office and residential elements. The
elevations of the commercial element facing the public open space and studio building are to be
based on a type 2 faēade, the internal facades are to be made from double glazed aluminium curtain
walling. To the northern elevation of the site the commercial element is to be based on a type 3
faēade.
The residential block above the commercial block is lifted, resulting in the residential block being
cantilevered over the commercial element. The overall shape of the residential tower is an upside
down ‘L’ shape complementing the horizontal ‘L’ shape of the commercial element. The faēade of
the residential element primarily comprises of glazing and pre-cast concrete, with vertical emphasis
being provided in the form of ceramic louvres, which protect the residential balconies from being
overlooked by the office areas. As with Building A the penthouse’s for the tower are recessed from
the main residential block and are predominantly glazed in nature with the common element of a
horizontal aluminium canopy, which again ties Building B with Buildings A and C.
It is considered that the three buildings work have clearly been designed with the setting of the Ship
Canal and two nearby iconic buildings in mind. Whilst care has been given not to detract in any way
from the Lowry or the Imperial War Museum, the proposed buildings are sleek, elegant with
subtleties of their surroundings woven into the their design, such as the curve of the dockside, the
reflection of the water within the aluminium elements and the transparency and lightweight nature
of the buildings.
Where all three buildings interact with public open space, they provide active frontages in the form
of retail and office facilities and adhere to the aims and principles identified in the early
masterplanning of the area.
I am satisfied with the overall quality and character of the three buildings and consider that their
development will set a benchmark for the standard of design to be achieved throughout the
redevelopment of the rest of the site. I consider that all three building relate well to their wider
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
setting and provide the opportunity for good interaction with any future developments that may
come forward.
4. Height
Condition 5 of the outline planning consent states that unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
local planning authority the proposed development shall not exceed the heights shown on the
Development Heights plan (Drawing no. 6998/01_08 of the Design and Access Statement
September 2006 prepared by Peel Media Ltd).
The heights of the buildings agreed in the outline application were as follows, Building A, 60m for
the residential tower and 24m for the office accommodation; Building C part 24m/ part 20m and
Building B 24m for the office accommodation and 78m for the residential tower. The proposed
height of building A is 82m for the residential tower and 37.3 m for the office development, an
increase of 22m overall. The proposed height of Building B is 73.6m for the residential aspect and
37.3m for the office accommodation, although the proposed residential element is within the
agreed height limit the office accommodation exceeds the limit by 13m. The proposed height of
Building C is 37.3m, which exceeds the agreed height limit by 13m.
The applicant provided justification during the course of the application process for these increases
in height in the form of a statement by Benoy the consultants whom the original masterplan was
commissioned. Benoy state:
‘The current planning application is in keeping with the fundamental generators and principles of
the original masterplan concept and we would anticipate that the current proposals should not
have a detrimental effect upon the later development stages’
It is considered that the deviation in heights from the original masterplan is considered to be
acceptable in principle and is broadly in keeping with the aims of the original masterplan. As future
sites are developed it is considered to be important that each application is assessed against the
original masterplan and that the overall masterplan is adapted to ensure that the site as a whole is
developed coherently.
6. Access
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 DES6 requires: all new development adjacent to Salford Quays to facilitate pedestrian
access to, along and, where appropriate, across the waterway by the provision of a safe, attractive
and overlooked waterside walkway accessible to all at all times; pedestrian links between the
waterside walkway and other key pedestrian routes; and where appropriate, ground floor uses
which generate pedestrian activity. Development will also be required to, where possible, protect,
improve or provide wildlife habitats and conserve and complement any historic features and not
affect the maintenance or integrity of the waterway. Finally, the policy requires all built
development along the Quays to face onto the water, incorporate entrances onto the waterfront
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
where appropriate, be of the highest standard of design, be of a scale sufficient to frame the edge of
the waterside and enhance views from, of, across and along the waterway.
The siting and design of the proposed buildings maintains broadly that of the original masterplan.
Buildings A and C which are located adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal include the creation of
an attractive canalside walkway with active frontages provided along the waterside elevation
wherever possible. It is considered that the proposed development help to achieve the aims of
policy DES6 and that it sets the standard for the development of a high quality waterside walkway
across the remainder of the site.
The nature of the end user of the proposed buildings has resulted in additional security measures
having to be included within the access elements of the development.
It is proposed that a security zone would be in place in the immediate streets around the buildings
and the proposed studio block (which does not form part of this application). These streets would be
fully pedestrianised and vehicular access will be allowed only by prior arrangements by security
cleared vehicles. Currently there are three security points proposed which are of relevance to this
application the first of which is located to the northeast of Building A on Media Street (security
cordon 1), and two further points are to be located within the service area of Building B (security
cordon’s 2 and 3).
The impact of these additional security measures and the general access arrangements made for
pedestrian, cyclist, vehicular and the servicing of the site are discussed in more detail below.
Pedestrian access
It is not anticipated that restrictions would be on placed pedestrian movement within the external
public areas surrounding the three buildings. In addition the wider landscaping of the site as well as
the concept landscaping information provided in support of this application puts pedestrians at the
top of the movement hierarchy within the area to which this application relates. In particular the
design of the buildings and the proposed design of the landscaped areas aim to reduce potential
barriers as much as possible allowing all users of the site to be able to move around easily.
Within the proposed buildings the pedestrian accesses to the buildings are separated where ever
possible from those used by vehicles or nearby to service yards. This is to ensure conflicts between
potential users are reduced as much as possible.
Another key concern for pedestrian access around the site is the street level environment. As part of
the requirement of the outline application a wind assessment was undertaken as part of this
application which assessed the impact of the wind and any potential down drafts resulting from the
tall buildings on the street level environment. This wind assessment undertaken by Jacobs (Section
12 of the Technical Appendix submitted February2007) identified several key areas within the site,
which without appropriate mitigation measures would give rise to wind conditions unsuitable for
pedestrian access. During the course of this application Gillespies have been drawing up detailed
landscaping proposals for the proposed plaza area as well as the internal spaces between buildings.
They have provided the following response in regards to potential mitigation measures for these
unsuitable areas:
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Area 1. The canalside walkway around the curved faēade of building C – it is proposed a guardrail
located in this area could help ease the wind levels, no further details have been provided regarding
this area, however there may be the potential for further mitigation through the landscaping of the
proposed public plaza.
Area 2. The throughfare between Building A and C (the location for the entrance for the future
footbridge) – a plan has been produced indicating a row of small 1.5m trees to the back of some
bench seating to be laid at an angle between the two buildings. Between these screens are a planned
staggered row of trees providing an additional climate and wind amelioration.
Area 3. The thoroughfare between Building A and the Studio Block. A soft landscape approach is
to be provided with the provision of street trees in a staggered and clumped arrangement. The
approach improves wind conditions however it is considered that further mitigation may be
necessary when the area is developed further.
Area 5. Thoroughfare between Studio Block and Building B – it is proposed that a small landscape
area is introduced at the rear of Building B and additional street trees are positioned between the
Studio Block and Building B.
It is considered that with the addition of appropriate landscaping the wind conditions between
buildings can be suitably controlled. It is also anticipated that the wind conditions between
buildings will be significantly improved with the introduction of more buildings within the area.
Access for cyclists
With the exception of a small area of cycle storage within building A, the cycle storage for all three
buildings will be located within the multi-storey car park to be subject of a future application. In
addition to the cycle storage within the multi-storey car park area the applicants are currently
working on plans to incorporate cycle bays and parking elsewhere through the site and potentially
within the public plaza area.
It is considered that the provision of cycle storage across the three buildings is suitably controlled
by conditions set out within the outline application.
Vehicular access
As stated previously vehicular access is limited beyond the security cordon to authorised vehicles
only. It is anticipated that the majority of private vehicles will enter the site from Broadway and
park within a multi-storey car parking block which is proposed in the northern part of the site.
Although this multi-storey car park is not being considered as part of this application it does form
part of phase one schedule of development. There are limits placed on the number of spaces to be
made available within phase one and it is considered that the carparking for the buildings subject to
this reserved matters application can be suitably accommodated within the car park. This includes
parking for the disabled. It is anticipated that a small element of disabled parking can be included
within the plaza area close to building C at a later stage in phase 1, however this does not form part
of this application.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Given that some small studio areas are proposed within block C, a drop off area has been created for
Taxi’s outside the reception area. It is anticipated that such vehicles will depart northwards along
Media Street.
Servicing arrangements
The end user of the commercial aspect of this development makes servicing arrangements more
complicated than other similar sized developments. It is considered to be vital that the commercial
buildings are capable of being serviced 24 hours a day, therefore it is important to ensure that this
can be undertaken with the minimum disturbance to the public areas of the site and the residential
living close by. Servicing also has to be provided for the residential units within Buildings A and B.
The servicing arrangements for each building are briefly summarised below:
Building A
To the northern elevation of Building A it is proposed that a service yard is created. The service
area created is slightly larger than what is show on the indicative masterplan as it now has a number
of additional functions. Firstly a security cordon would split the service yard, this is a security
requirement of the BBC. Only vehicles with authorised access will be able to pass through the
security cordon, for vehicles with no access a turning circle is provided within the service yard.
For day to day deliveries to the residential units such as post and supermarket shopping vehicles
would drive down Media Street, turn right into the service area, deliver the goods before turning
round and departing back northwards along Media Street. Occasionally the residential units will be
required to be serviced by larger vehicles such as refuse vehicles or removal vans, in these
circumstances vehicles will pass through the BBC security barrier and follow the same route as
vehicles servicing the office and commercial elements.
Vehicles servicing the office and commercial areas of the building will pass through the BBC
security cordon, before pulling into the service area and reversing into the service bay door. These
vehicles would then leave the site by the security cordon and exit down Media Street. For larger
vehicles such as HGVs entry would be through the security cordon, pull up along side Building A
to drop off goods before leaving south down Media street, turning left across the public plaza area,
before exiting north through another security cordon.
It is anticipated that approximately 40 vehicles a day will be required to service Building A.
Building B
A service yard is provided to the north of the commercial element of the building. A residential
drop of bay has also been provided in front of the entrance to the residential block, which is
intended by used by private vehicles and smaller servicing/ delivery vehicles. Refuse vehicles can
also use the residential service bay.
Servicing for the commercial elements of the building will be via the second BBC security
boundary before entering the servicing bay to the north of the building, after unloading the vehicle
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
it will exit via a different security cordon. In exceptional circumstances when larger vehicles are
required to access the residential block, they would do so through via the BBC security cordon
A number of servicing vehicles are likely to be required to deliver to the reception area, in this case
the delivery person would park in the service area and walk round to deliver to the reception.
It is anticipated that 36 vehicles a day will be required to service building B.
Building C
Vehicles servicing Building C will approach via Media Street, vehicles above the size of a refuse
vehicle will route towards the public plaza and park up within this area to the north of building C.
Deliveries will then be moved to the service bay or reception area as appropriate. The vehicle will
then exit along the public plaza and head left on to the radial road 2, at which point it will exit at the
BBC security cordon number 2.
Servicing for smaller vehicles will enter the site through the BBC security cordon 1, before turning
right into the service area, vehicles are then able to reverse into the servicing area, before exiting
north along Media Street and exiting via the BBC security cordon 1.
It is anticipated that the total number of service vehicles required to this building a day would be 35,
12 of which are likely to be larger vehicles who would be required to exit through the public plaza.
The special nature and security requirements of the end-user of the commercial element of the
buildings has resulted in several different servicing strategies being required for each building. I am
satisfied that the servicing arrangements have been fully explored and the arrangements put
forward will have allow for 24 hour servicing to the commercial buildings, without interfering with
servicing to the residential elements. I am also happy that the level of vehicular movement
identified combined with the servicing strategy would ensure that the amenity of the nearby
residents is maintained.
Residential Amenity
Policy DES7 states that all new development will be required to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout.
Residential amenity has been considered during the detailed design of Buildings A and B.
Within both Building A and B there are aspects are to be aspects of commercial and residential
spaces which would face each other. The solution for this is to provide a more solid faēade on the
commercial elements, where ‘back of house’ elements could be housed and to provide a part/
glazed part solid faēade on the residential units.
In Building A the facing element of the commercial and residential areas extend for 6 storeys. The
closest habitable room window to the commercial element of Building is 8m and serves a bedroom
window within a two-bedroom unit, other habitable room windows facing the commercial element
range from 14-18m. In Building B habitable room windows face the commercial element of the
building at a distance of 18m. Given that the commercial element forms part of the same building
and will be developed at the same time as the residential element, I am satisfied that the distances
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
proposed between the commercial and residential element are sufficient enough to protect the
amenity of future residents.
The internal layouts provided by the applicant indicate some potentially conflicting arrangements
between the residential units whereby bedrooms of one unit are located adjacent to the living areas
of another unit. I am satisfied however that any potential conflict arising from this arrangement can
suitable controlled by condition 10 of the outline planning consent.
Mediacity is intended to be a 24 hour place to live and work, the location of these particular
buildings will result in the residential units being situated in one of the busiest parts of the site. In
addition the commercial elements of the buildings are required to be serviced 24 hours a day. It is
considered that appropriate mitigation measures can be put in place through condition 10 of the
outline application that will ensure that the residential amenity of future occupiers is protected.
I am therefore satisfied that the proposed buildings would not give rise to an unacceptable level of
amenity for the future residents of the site.
Landscaping
Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and soft
landscaping provision. Where landscaping is required as part of a development, it must be of a high
quality, reflect and enhance the character of the area, not detract from safety and security, form an
integral part of the development, be easily maintained, respect adjacent land uses and wherever
possible make provision for the creation of new wildlife habitats.
Although landscaping is being sought as part of this reserved matters application, the landscaping
details provided around the buildings are limited. This is due to the fact that the landscaping of the
wider part of the site is being considered as an entirety during the development of the public plaza
area. Concept information has been provided in regards how the areas immediately adjacent to the
buildings would be treated and how would link into the wider landscaping plans that are being
developed for the proposed public plaza area.
It is recommended that a planning condition be attached to any consent requiring further details of
landscaping to be submitted to and improved in writing prior to the occupation of any of the
buildings.
Environmental Impact
Policy ST8 requires development to contribute towards enhances standards of environmental
quality through the achievement of high standards of design, amenity, safety and environmental
maintenance and management.
Policy ST13 states that development that would result in an unacceptable impact on any of the
cities natural environmental assets will not be permitted.
Policy ST14 requires development to minimise its impact on the global environment and requires
major development to demonstrate how they will minimise their greenhouse gas emissions.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Policy EN18 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact on surface or ground water in terms of its quality, level or flow.
Policy EN19 states that development will not be permitted unless adequate provision is made for
the discharge of foul and surface water associated with the proposal.
Policy EN22 states that development for more than 100 dwellings or 5,000 sq m of floorspace will
only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the impact on the conservation of
non-renewable resources on the local and global environment has been minimised as far as possible
and that full consideration has been given to the use of realistic renewable energy options and such
options have been incorporated into the development.
Condition 22 of the outline planning consent required the submission of details demonstrating how
the development seeks to reduce the impact on the supply of non-renewable resources and that full
consideration is has been given to the use of realistic renewable energy options and these have been
included wherever practicable.
Information submitted with the application states that the design of the building is to comply with
part L of the building regulations which requires the reduction of Carbon emissions by 28%, in
addition the development proposes to reduce these emissions by a further 8% by a variety of
measures.
The building envelope for all buildings have been designed in order to improve the energy
efficiency of the buildings, this includes:
High performance glazing to reduce solar gain and heat losses
Good thermal properties to the building fabric
Braise Soleil which is a louvers system design to minimise solar gain
Mechanical ventilation systems with heat recovery
High efficiency, low Nitrate Oxide boilers
Active beams to provide heating and cooling where required
High efficiency chillers
High efficiency lighting with good controls to minimise use
BMS systems to monitor and control energy use.
In addition to the measures above the applicants also considered the use of solar hot water heating
which was no progressed due to low hot water demand and seasonable availability, photo-voltaic
measures which was not progressed due to the impact on faēade design and a lack of roof space,
wind turbines not progressed due to the impact on residential amenity and low output in relation to
the requirement, ground source heat pumps not progressed as Combined Cooling and Heating Plan
(CCHP) was considered to be the preferred alternative and was therefore progressed.
I am satisfied that the applicant has explored a range of options in providing renewable energy and
ensuring the proposed buildings are as energy efficient as possible. It is considered that the features
provided are appropriate to the building and the features that have been discarded have been done
so with good reason.
In addition condition 23 of the outline planning consent requires that prior to the submission of
details of measures to achieved a BREEAM rating very good are to be submitted to the local
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
planning authority to be approved in writing. It is considered that the details submitted, as part of
this application and the forthcoming details required of the BREEAM rating demonstrate a strong
commitment to the sustainability of these buildings. I am therefore satisfied that the application is
in accordance with policy EN22 and ST14.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
This application is the result of ongoing discussions with the applicants and their advisors. Through
these discussions, improvements to the internal layout, servicing, landscaping and housing mix
have been secured. It is considered that these discussions are an ongoing process that will continue
for the remaining phases of the redevelopment of Quays Point.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposed development would set a high benchmark in respect
of design and quality to which the later phases and development in this area would be required to
meet. I am satisfied that the housing mix proposed is acceptable for this stage of the development
and am confident that any perceived shortcomings within the mix can be suitably accommodated
within the later phases of the development of Mediacity:uk. Overall I am satisfied that the proposal
would comply with the thrust of national, regional and local planning policy and I therefore
recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Notwithstanding the plans hereby submitted no plant or equipment, including any satellites,
antenna or telecommunication equipment shall be externally located on any of the buildings
hereby permitted unless full details of the size, colour and location of any such equipment have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The equipment
shall then be sited in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing.
2. Notwithstanding the landscaping details hereby submitted the area indicated within the redline
plan (drawing no. 414/P/102/P1) shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which
shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of
the buildings hereby approved. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be
planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried in accordance with
the timescales set out in condition 36 of outline planning consent 06/53168/OUT unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 3rd April 2007 that shows
revisions to buildings A and B
(Reasons)
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
1. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is reminded that if the end use of any of the retail units hereby permitted are for
A3, A4 or A5 use then details need to be submitted in accordance with condition 16 of the
outline planning consent 06/53168/OUT.
APPLICATION No:
06/53445/FUL
APPLICANT:
Steven Dorsey
LOCATION:
Land Forming Side Garden Of 82 Liverpool Road Irlam M44
6FN
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one detached dwelling
WARD:
Irlam
At a meeting of the Panel held on 5th April 2007 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY
PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
Following completion of this report further consideration has been given to the trees which exists in
close to the boundary of the site. Whilst there are two trees, the trunks are in close proximity to one
another and it is likely that one could not be removed without significantly damaging the other. The
Sycamore trees are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (No.333), however the Consultant
Arboriculturalist has confirmed that the trees would not be affected by the development as adequate
distance would remain between the building and the Root Protection Area. In order to ensure that
the trees and their roots are protected during construction, a additional condition has been added to
require a tree constraints plan detailing protection measures and a construction exclusion zone with
method statement for any works within the construction exclusion zone.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
The application relates to the erection of a single detached dwelling within the side garden of
number 82 Liverpool Road. The area of the site is 352 square metres. There is currently a dropped
kerb which serves number 82 Liverpool Road. The site is currently occupied by a garage which is
to be demolished as part of the application. It is proposed that access to the site will be taken from
Liverpool Road across the existing dropped kerb and footpath crossing.
It is proposed that a triangular garden area is provided to the rear of the house. The remainder of the
area within the site is to be brick paved. Six metres remains from the front elevation of the house to
the front boundary. The front boundary treatment is a 1.2 metre high privet fence. To the side
boundaries is a 1.6 metre privet hedge. One tree exists in close proximity to the site however this is
5.5 metres from the dwelling and it is not proposed to remove this tree.
The proposed dwelling is a detached house which is to be 7.9 metres high to the ridge and 4.9
metres to the eaves. The proposed materials are brick and render similar to 82 Liverpool Road, with
orange roof tiles. The footprint of the building is 8.5m x 9m
To the North of the development site are two residential blocks of
flats, to the East is the garden area and house at number 82 Liverpool
Road, to the South is Liverpool Road itself beyond which are
residential properties approximately 40 metres from the development.
To the West of the site is an area of open land beyond which are more
residential properties fronting onto Liverpool Road.
SITE HISTORY
06/52898/FUL - Erection of a detached dwelling - Withdrawn
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – Recommendation that a full contaminated land
condition is included, and that an informative is attached stating that uprated acoustic glazing
should be installed to habitable room windows facing Liverpool Road.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flats1-32 Holly Court (Odds and Evens)
Warden’s Flat – Holly Court
Flats 1-32 St. Clements Court (Odds and Evens)
Warden’s Flat St Clements Court
80, 82F, 82B, 82 Liverpool Road
1-7 Pasturegreen Way (Odds)
7-15 Grazing Drive (Odds)
1-5 Marlborough Road (Odds and Evens)
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 30 letters of objection to the proposal. The following issues were raised:
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Unpleasant outlook
Loss of light
Presence of a sewer in close proximity to the site
St Clements Court is occupied by Council Tax Payers and therefore their views should be
taken into account
RSS POLICY
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Other policies:
Policy DES1 (Respecting Context)
Policy DES7 (Amenity of Users and Neighbours)
Policy ST11
(Location of New Development)
Policy H1
(Provision of new Housing Development)
Policy A2
(Cyclists Pedestrians and the Disabled)
Policy HOU1 (Type of New Housing)
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the suitability of the proposed location for
development of this type, the impact the development would have on the amenities of nearby
residential occupiers, the impacts of the development upon highway safety and traffic volumes and
the quality of design and the impact on the local area
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all developments should
respect the context of the area within which they are situated. In particular regard should be had to
the impact upon and relationship to the existing landscape, the character, scale and pattern of streets
and building plots, the relationship to existing buildings and features that contribute to townscape
quality, the quality of the proposed materials and the functional compatibility with adjoining land
uses.
Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all new developments and
alterations and extensions to existing buildings provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. Policy DES7 states that
permission should not be granted for development where it would have an unacceptable impact
upon the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
Policy ST11 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that sites are brought forward for
development in a sequential order. The most preferable sites being existing buildings which can be
re-used or converted, or upon previously developed land which is well-served by a means of
transport, particularly walking cycling and public transport, and which are well related to housing,
employment, services and infrastructure.
Policy H1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that new housing development
should provide a high quality residential environment and an adequate level of amenity, in
particular focussing upon the size of the development, the physical characteristics of the site and the
accessibility of the site and its location in relation to jobs and facilities.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Policy A2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all new development makes
adequate provision for cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled.
Policy HOU1 of the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance states that within West
Salford, Broughton Park, Claremont and the Northern part of Weaste and Seedley, the large
majority of dwellings should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
Location and Design of Development
The proposed development would involve the re-use of brownfield land in accordance with Criteria
2 of Policy ST11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the guidance contained within
Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) which seeks to prioritise the development of such land over
land which has not been previously developed (Greenfield land). The site is within Irlam which is
classed as West Salford in Policy HOU1 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on
Housing. Therefore the proposed single dwelling accords with this policy.
The site is on a major arterial route in Salford and therefore it is considered that the development
would be accessible by a number of travel modes.
I therefore consider that the principle of the development in this location is acceptable.
I consider that the positioning of the proposed dwelling would respect the general building line, and
that the materials proposed for the development would be in keeping with those on other buildings
in the immediate area. I consider that the design and height of the proposed building is acceptable
and would not look out of place in the locality and therefore would not unduly affect the character
of the area. I consider that the proposed use and would respect the overall character of the area and
therefore am of the opinion that the development would be in accordance with Policy DES1 of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Impacts upon Amenity
I have received 30 letters of objection to the proposal. The nature of the objections are
predominantly associated with residential and visual amenity. Objectors from St Clements Court
have raised the issue of loss of light to windows. However, there would remain 13 metres between
the windows within St Clements Court and the boundary of the site. There would remain
approximately 14 metres between the windows within St Clements Court and the closest corner of
the building. Whilst it is accepted that the proposed building is South of St Clements Court, it is
considered that the height of the proposed building coupled with the minimum separation distance
of 13m between the buildings and the boundary of the plot that no significant loss of light or
shadowing would occur to windows in St Clements Court.
Objectors also raised the issue of loss of outlook. Again it is considered that the separation distance
between the proposed building and St Clements Court is sufficient to protect the outlook of
residents. I do not consider that the proposal would constitute an unsightly development nor would
it look out of place within the locality.
The are no windows proposed to be inserted in the side elevation of the proposed dwelling which
faces 82 Liverpool Road and therefore consider that there will be no impact upon this neighbour in
terms of privacy or overlooking. There are habitable room windows at ground and first floor in the
rear elevation of number 82 Liverpool Road however I do not consider that these would be subject
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
to any overshadowing as the gable of the proposed dwelling is situated further forward than this
property. I do not consider that there would be any loss of outlook to this neighbour as the gable of
the proposed dwelling would not be visible from the rear of number 82. The tree which exists on the
boundary of the site is mature however is not considered worthy of protection by a Tree
Preservation Order. The tree falls outside of the site and I am satisfied that the tree would not be
affected by the development I do not consider that the amenities of any nearby residential occupiers
would be unduly affected by the development and therefore consider that the proposal is in
accordance with Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Highway Safety
The proposal includes a new vehicular access to the front of the dwelling. The kerb to the front of
the proposal site is already dropped. The driveway is to be shared with number 82 Liverpool Road
and there is sufficient space within the curtilage of the site for the parking of two vehicles. I have no
objections to the proposal on highway grounds.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has provided amended plans to show the access to the driveway and space within the
site to park two vehicles.
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposal is of a suitable design and is
located upon a sequentially preferable site in accordance with the
requirements of Policy ST11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan
and PPS3.
I do not consider that the proposed development would have any
significant impact upon the amenity of any nearby residential
occupiers in terms of privacy, overshadowing or visual intrusion. It
is considered that the proposed dwelling would not look out of place
in the locality and would respect the context of the area within which
it is set. For these reasons I consider that the development would
be in accordance with Policies DES1 and DES7 of The Adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03Y Samples of materials
3. 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
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
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.
4. Prior to the commencement of development a tree constraints plan detailing protection
measures and a construction exclusion zone with method statement for any works deemed
necessary within the construction exclusion zone of the sycamore trees protected under Tree
Preservation Order No.333 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved tree constraints plan
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
4. Reason: To protect trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order in accordance
with policy EN 10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. It is considered advisable to install uprated acoustic glazing to habitable rooms with a line of
sight to Liverpool Road. Glazing specifications should be to install sealed double glazed units
comprising glass of 10mm and laminated 6.4mm with a 12mm air gap. The unit should be
installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations to avoid air gaps when fitting
the frames. Acoustic trickle vents are recommended for ventilation purposes.
APPLICATION No:
07/54009/FUL
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
APPLICANT:
Orbit Investments (Salford) Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To Metroplex Business Park Broadway Salford
M5 2UE
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a four storey office building together with
associated car parking and alteration to existing vehicular
access
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a vacant site which lies within the Metroplex Business Park to the north
east of Boradway, with other commercial units to the south-east, west and north-west. To the
north-east is the Weaste Cemetery, which accommodates several listed structures. Separating the
application site from the cemetery is a band of mature tress which provides substantial screening.
A 2.4 m high green coloured wire mesh fence surrounds the site.
There has been a previous approval at this site (04/48774/FUL) for the erection of two 3-storey
office buildings together with associated car parking and landscaping. However, the applicant now
wishes to increase the size of Building B by one storey together with an increase in the parking
provision across the site, whilst still implementing Building A as previously approved. Therefore,
the application site (denoted by a red line) includes Building B, the proposed access and a large
proportion of the parking for the site as a whole, whilst the remainder of the site including Building
A and the remainder of car parking is outside of the application site but within the control of the
applicant (denoted by the blue line on the application plans).
The total amount of floorspace created would be 4,444 square metres. The number of car parking
spaces proposed within the red line boundary is 177, including 7 disabled parking spaces, 221 car
parking spaces are shown within the red and the blue line boundary. Provision is also made for 24
secure cycle stores and 12 secure motorcycle stores.
The building would be set back approximately 50 metres from the back of the footpath on
Broadway and 9 metres from the rear boundary shared with Weaste Cemetery. It would have a
footprint of 27 metres X 12.3 metres.
The building would have a pitched roof constructed from metal cladding, and walls constructed
from brick. The fenestration details, with series of windows at ground, first, second and third floor
levels, give horizontal emphasis to the building. However, the four-storey glazed reception
provides a central focal point for the building and a contrasting vertical emphasis. The eaves height
of the building would be 14 metres and the ridge height would be 17.9 metres.
Form of Application
The applicant has been advised that should the current application for the four-storey building be
approved and implemented with its altered access and car parking layout, building A of permission
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
04/48774/FUL could not be implemented lawfully. This is because condition 5 of this consent,
which relates to the submission of a car parking layout showing a maximum of 194 car parking
spaces, could not be complied with. However, a further application to vary this condition could
enable both permissions to be implemented lawfully if approved. The applicant is aware of this and
an informative to this effect will be attached to any planning consent.
SITE HISTORY
In 2004, planning permission was granted for the erection of two 3-storey office buildings with car
parking together with associated alterations to existing vehicular access (04/48774/FUL).
In 2001, planning permission was granted for the use of the land as a car park (01/42847/FUL).
In 1992, planning permission was granted for the northern portion of the site to be used for a metal
and paper processing unit with 60 car parking spaces (E/30228).
Prior to 1992 the site formed part of the larger Metroplex Business Park developed under Enterprise
Zone Powers.
CONSULTATIONS
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services recommends the attachment of a condition
relating to contaminated land and informatives relating to food safety/health safety and acoustic
protection. Comments relating to air quality advise that as the application for a similar design was
initially granted permission in 2004 and given that a detailed travel plan is included, an air quality
assessment is not required. The measures in the plan will help to reduce congestion, improve
accessibility and safeguard the environment. A condition relating to targets for non vehicle use is
also recommended, although this could be addressed in the Travel Plan.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Advise that the submitted crime prevention
plan be an approved document.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 1st February 2007
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on 11th January 2007.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Units 1 – 13 Modewheel Workshops, Mode Wheel Road South
Modewheel Workshops, Mode Wheel Road South
Units L, P, N and M Modewheel Workshops, Mode Wheel Road South
Wareing Plant Hire, Unit G, Modewheel Workshops, Mode Wheel Road South
5 Columbus Way
Unit 400 First Floor, Metroplex Business Park, Broadway
400 Broadway
First Floor, Kingfisher Court, 201-203 Broadway
Ground Floor, Kingfisher Court, 201-203 Broadway
Kingfisher Court, 201-203 Broadway
Falcon Court, 209-211 Broadway
Kestrel Court, 213-215 Broadway
Mallard Court, 205-207 Broadway
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Ground Floor and First Floor, Kestrel Court, 213-215 Broadway
320 Metroplex Business Park, Broadway
310 Metroplex Business Park, Broadway
REPRESENTATIONS
No objections have been received in response to this application.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3:
Quality in New Developments.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1: Respecting Context.
DES7: Amenity of Neighbours and Users.
DES9: Landscaping.
DES10: Design and Crime
A1:
Transport Assessments and Travel Plans.
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments.
ST11: Location of New Development
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1:
Regional Development Principles.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The key issues to be considered in the determination of this planning application are: whether the
principle of development is acceptable, whether the design and appearance is acceptable and
whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on amenity and access and parking.
Principle of Development
The site benefits from an extant permission for the erection of two
three storey office buildings. The proposal would result in the
increasing of building B by one storey equating to 1,111 square
metres. The site falls within the Mediacity area as indicated in the
Mediacity UK Planning Guidance. A key principle of this document is
to create a cohesive, vibrant, mixed-use area.
Given the existence of the extant permission, the location of the site within a business park and the
limited increase in floorspace, I am of the view that the proposed development would be acceptable
in principle and would not be detrimental to the creation of a mixed-use area.
Design and Appearance
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Policy DES1 of the UDP states that development will be required to respond to its physical context,
respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards local
identity and distinctiveness.
The proposed building would be set back approximately 50 metres from Broadway and would be
comparable in design to surrounding commercial units. In terms of design, this would match that
which was approved in application 04/48774/FUL with the addition of a further storey.
Samples showing the proposed materials have been submitted, these are a Hanson ‘Wentworth
Mixture’ facing brick and roof material, Euroclad profiled metal cladding, colour Merlin Grey. I
consider the materials proposed to be of a sufficiently high quality and an appropriate colour and a
condition requiring the materials to be in accordance with these samples would be attached to any
planning consent.
Comments from the Architectural and Landscape Design team advise that the information shown
on drawing number L214-1 are sufficient with the inclusion of for irrigation in the tree pits located
in hardscape areas. The agent has since confirmed that the root irrigation system will be
incorporated into the tree pits. The landscaping scheme submitted is therefore acceptable and a
condition would be attached to any planning consent ensuring that this scheme be implemented.
Policy DES10 seeks to encourage the inclusion of design measures which reduce criminal activity.
This is supplemented by Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’ which provides
detailed guidance on designing out crime for new developments. The comments of the Police
Architectural Liaison Officer advises that the submitted crime prevention statement be an approved
document.
A 2.4 metre green paladin fence currently surrounds the site and it is proposed that this fence be
retained. A 2.4 metre paladin vehicular access gate is proposed and a security lodge at the vehicle
access which will be manned 24 hours a day. A crime prevention statement has been submitted,
this states that CCTV and lighting will be put in place, the landscaping scheme has been designed to
give clear access and vision across the car parking areas to avoid dark areas and providing the
potential for cover. The developers seek to obtain a ‘Secured by Design’ accreditation on the site.
A condition has been added to secure the measures outlined in the Crime Prevention Statement.
Amenity
Policy DES7 states that all new development will be required to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity. Development will not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
Given that the site is located within the Metroplex Business Park where the neighbouring uses are
predominantly commercial, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on
the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. The band of mature trees to the rear of the site provides
substantial screening between the site and Weaste Cemetery. Therefore, I am satisfied that the
proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the cemetery.
Highway Issues
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
The proposed would be approximately 15 metres to the south of the access approved as part of the
previous consent and from the existing access. This access is considered to be acceptable.
Policy A10 of the UDP states that development will be required to make adequate provision for
disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists in accordance with the minimum standards set out
within appendix B and to not exceed the maximum car parking standards set out within appendix C.
Appendix B states that disabled spaces should be provided on the basis of 6 plus 2% of total
capacity, equating to a total of 9. Cycle parking should be provided on the basis of 1 per 400 square
metres equating to 6 and motorcycle parking on the basis of 1 per 1,400 square metres with a
minimum of 2 spaces equating to 3. The proposal provides 7 disabled spaces, secure space for 24
cycles and secure space for 6 motorcylces.
Appendix C states that maximum car parking provision for business parks should be calculated on
the basis of 1 space per 40 square metres equating to 111. The Mediacity UK Planning Document
states that car parking should not dominate new developments. Paragraph 3.10 states that all
proposals for development within the mediacity:UK area should accord with the principles of
sustainability and should facilitate the delivery of sustainable development.
177 car parking spaces are shown within the red line, this exceeds maximum car parking standards
by 66 spaces representing 59%. The extant permission (04/48774/FUL) exceeded the parking
standards by 49 spaces (34%).
The applicants have stated that a bus stop is 1 kilometre from the site which equates to around
12-14 minutes walk, the nearest metrolink stop is about 850 metres from the site or a 10 minute
walk, the nearest railway stations are all over 2 kilometres from the site, at least 30 minutes walk.
In the foreseeable future none of this will change. It is stated that generally only a small proportion
of people will voluntarily walk over 1.6 kilometres and easy walking distance is usually considered
as being up to 800 metres. A convenient distance to a bus stop is normally thought to be 400
metres.
Despite the above, I do not feel that significant justification has been provided regarding the further
increase in parking within the red line to that previously approved and subsequently a condition
would be attached to any planning consent ensuring that a revised parking scheme showing a
maximum of 149 car parking spaces and minimum of 9 disabled spaces be submitted. 149 spaces
would still exceed maximum parking standards by 34%, but this percentage is the same as the
percentage approved as part of the extant permission.
221 spaces are shown within the red and blue line and the applicants have expressed a desire to
construct building B as part of this application and building A as part of the extant permission. The
combined floorspace would total 6,928 square metres and 221 spaces would exceed maximum car
parking standards by 48 spaces representing 28%. Whilst condition 5 of the extant permission
could not be complied with without an application seeking to vary the condition being submitted
and approved, 221 spaces across the whole site represents less parking per square metre than the
extant permission and is therefore considered acceptable. A condition would be attached to any
consent restricting the parking to a maximum of 221 spaces should building B be constructed in
conjunction with building A.
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
A condition would be attached to any planning consent requiring the applicant to provide a Green
Travel Plan, in order to promote the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with
Policy A1 and PPG13.
CONCLUSION
The additional floorspace created by this development would not have an unacceptable impact on
the visual amenity of the area nor would it have a detrimental impact on neighbouring occupiers.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, parking can be controlled to an appropriate
level. Therefore, the development is considered to be in accordance with the development plan and
all other material considerations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
date of this permission.
2. Should only building B be constructed in accordance with this permission, a revised parking
layout with a maximum of 149 car parking spaces including a minimum of 9 disabled car
parking spaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
prior to first occupation of the unit hereby approved.
3. Should building B be constructed in conjunction with building A (as approved under
permission 04/48774/FUL) with a total floorspace of 6,928 square metres, the car parking shall
be laid out in accordance with drawing number 784-comc-2006 rev A which shows a
maximum of 221 spaces prior to the first occupation of the unit hereby approved.
4. The landscape scheme hereby approved (Drawing L214-1) 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. The materials to be used for the walls of the development hereby approved shall be Hanson
'Wentworth Mixture' brickwork, and the roof material shall be Euroclad profiled metal
cladding, colour Merlin Grey unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
6. Within a period of three months of the first occupation of the building hereby approved the
tenant/landlord shall undertake a travel survey to establish current travel patters and this data
will form the basis for a Travel Plan. Within a period of six months from the date of first
occupation, a travel plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development thereafter shall operate in accordance with the approved travel
plan.
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
7. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the
nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall
include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and
controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions
on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and
landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and
property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained
within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the
site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the Local Planning Authority.
8. The crime prevention plan dated 2nd March 2007 shall be implemented prior to the first
occupation of the development hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
date of this permission.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with
Policy A1 of the UDP.
7. Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of Salford
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Unitary Development Plan
8. In the interest of design and crime in accordance with Policy DES10 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicants should contact the Commercial Services team for discussions and advice on the
layout, design and procedures undertaken by the proposed use prior to the commencement of
the business. Commercial Services can provide such advice concerning matters relating to the
Food Safety Act and the Health & Safety at Work etc Act. For further advice please contact
0161 737 0551.
2. The applicant is advised that the site is adjacent to a busy feeder road. Proposals are in place to
extend this route as a primary access into the Salford Quays area. It is recommended that the
applicant should uprate the acoustic protection afforded by glazing elements within the
building to minimise the potential of disturbance from noise both at present and in the future.
3. Building A of permission 04/48774/FUL can not be lawfully implemented in conjunction with
building B of the application hereby approved unless an application to vary condition 5 of
04/48774/FUL is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
APPLICATION No:
07/54149/FUL
APPLICANT:
LPC Living
LOCATION:
Land To The North Of Ordsall Park Adjacent To Hulton Street
Salford
PROPOSAL:
New housing development comprising 157 apartments and 103
dwellings together with new access road and associated
infrastructure, landscaping and car parking provision
WARD:
Ordsall
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an area of open space and unused land to the north of Ordsall Park. The
site is 3.36 hectares and has comprised of terrace housing prior to demolition between 1960 and
1970.
The site is surrounded by existing residential properties situated on Napier Green and Collingburn
Court, and is bordered by the rear gardens of neighbouring houses along the western north-south
boundary. St Clements Church (a grade II listed building) is located to the east of the site.
The greenfield element occupies 1.51 hectares of the site and has a number of footpaths leading
through. Whilst the site as a whole has been previously developed, the open space element which
was laid out as an extension to Ordsall Park in the 1970’s is considered to be ‘greenfield’ land,
according to the definition set out in PPS3. There are a number of raised embankments around the
perimeter of the open space which restrict natural survaillance. The brownfield land element
comprises of the former Park House Day Centre and Collingburn Court, a Local Authority
sheltered housing scheme, which were formally located at the south-western corner of the site.
These were demolished in 2000 and 2006 respectively.
Planning permission is now sought for 260 new dwellings on land to the north of Hulton Street.
The residential provision would provide 157 apartments and 103 dwellings. The associated
infrastructure works include the provision of a new roundabout on Phoebe Street adjacent to
Fallowfield Avenue. Fallowfield Avenue would be redirected onto a new road within the site.
Further to the provision of a new road layout, improvements and calming would be made to Hulton
Street. The proposal would also include access and parking improves to St Clements Church.
A full break down of the mix of residential accommodation is provided later in this report including
details of the proposed phasing arrangements. However, the development would comprise of 6
blocks of accommodation. I have summarised the number of storeys for each block below:
Block A would be 3 storey with additional accommodation by way of a mezzanine floor in the roof
space
Block B would be 3 storey
Block C would be 3 storey
Block D would be 3 storey (internally two storey)
Block E would be 3 storey (internally two storey)
Block F would be 4 storey
Block G would part 5 storey, part 3 storey
Block H would part 5 storey, part 3 storey
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was approved in 1993 (93/31514/DEEM4) for outline planning consent for
development of land for residential purposes. However, no reserved matters application was
submitted prior to the application lapsing.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Planning permission was approved in 1992 (92/31566/FUL) for the erection of 73 No.
dwellinghouses together with associated car parking and the construction of a new vehicular and
pedestrian access. However, this application has also lapsed.
An application for Erection of 94 dwellings and one three storey building comprising six flats
together with associated landscaping car parking and alterations to existing and construction of new
vehicular access (97/37433/FUL) was withdrawn from consideration.
It is clear that the permissions issued above have established the principle of residential
development on this site previously. However, given the passage of time it is necessary to consider
the proposals against the prevailing planning policy.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to the inclusion of a site investigation
condition
United Utilities – No objection
Environment Agency – Awaiting further comment
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no response
Police Architectural Liaison Advisor - This has been the subject of pre planning discussions with
this unit and I (ie the Unit) can see no problems with the proposals.
Urban Regeneration Company – No objection “In summary, we strongly support this scheme and
believe that its implementation will make a significant contribution to bringing about the
sustainable regeneration of the Ordsall area.”
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – no response
English Heritage – Do not offer any advice on these current proposals
Ramblers Association – No objection
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No response
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No response
The Open Spaces Society – No Response
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 28th November 2007
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 15th February 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
1 – 11 (o), 17 – 33 (o), 2 – 14 (e) Napier Green
None Acre Court (All flats)
Chicago Wines, Phoebe Street
39 – 53 Collingburn Avenue
Radclyffe Community Primary School, School House, Phoebe Street
32 – 46 (e) St Clements Drive
2 – 28 Buckfield Avenue
The Rectory, 101 Hulton Street
1 – 7 (cons) St Clements Drive
90 Phoebe Street
1 – 23 (o) Percy Drive
1 – 31 (cons) Ledbrooke Close
10 – 35 (cons) Colman Gardens
2 – 34 (e) Browfield Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one response to the application publicity. The following comments has been made:
No objection in principle providing that views are not interrupted
Loss of view is not a material planning consideration. However, aspects between existing
residential properties and this proposal is discussed later in the report ‘Effects of the development
on residential amenity’
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: DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES3 Design of
Public Space, DES4 Relationship of Development to Public Space, DES7 Amenity of Users and
Neighbours, DES9 Landscaping, DES10 Design and Crime, DES11 Design Statements, EN14
Pollution Control, A10 Cars and Cycles, H1 Provision of New Housing, H4 Affordable Housing,
H8 Open Space Provision, ST11 Location of New Development, ST12 Development Density,
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP1: Regional Development Principles
L4: Regional Housing Provision
L5: Affordable Housing
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 and Planning Obligations. The Council has also recently
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
adopted Housing Planning Guidance. The latter does not form part of Salford’s Local
Development Framework but as it is adopted as council policy, it is a material consideration in the
determination of planning applications.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the density, 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 it would result in an unacceptable
loss of trees and whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable. I shall deal with each of these
issues in turn.
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. With regards to the principle of the
proposed development, the site is located within an area of mixed uses.
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
are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure
Therefore, the policy presumption is to develop greenfield locations following development of
other more sustainable and previously-developed locations.
A proportion of this site that contained the former public house and former care home constitutes
brownfield land as defined by PPS3. Therefore, given the relationship of this brownfield element
to the surrounding residential community, I consider that the principle of development on this
previously developed element of the site is clearly acceptable. However, the proportion of the site
where the former playing fields were provided is greenfield land and would fall within criteria 4 of
adopted policy ST11. Given that the major part of the site is defined as greenfield land the
following element of the report assesses the proposal on the basis that the site is greenfield land.
Therefore, whilst policy ST11 does not preclude development on greenfield land, it is clear that the
development of this site at present with an abundance of brownfield sites still available elsewhere
in the City, would not satisfy the sequential release of development at present. Therefore, I
consider that the principle of this development would be contrary to the thrust of policy ST11 of the
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
adopted Unitary Development Plan. However, it is necessary to consider all other material
planning considerations
Development Framework for Ordsall
The Development Framework for Ordsall was prepared by BPTW architects, on behalf of the
Council and LPC Living. BPTW carried out survey and consultation work, including a walking
audit of the estate. An exhibition of their ideas for the area was held between 17th and 25th April,
at Ordsall Hall. Over 300 people attended the exhibition and 40 people completed and returned
questionnaires. The proposals generally received overwhelming support, both from the returned
questionnaires and from the comments made by visitors.
Ordsall Langworthy Community Committee and the council cabinet formally endorsed the
Framework in October and November 2004.
The framework set out proposals for the use of vacant land in the area and for improvements to
roads and footpaths, parks and open spaces and community facilities. The document was not
intended to be a blueprint for the development of any particular site. It proposed a number of
environmental and infrastructure improvements that would benefit the estate, identifies sites
suitable for development, set out key principles to guide development and illustrated possible
building footprints. However, the final form of any new development may differ from that
illustrated, while still following the design principles.
In summary, the key proposals were:
Environmental and infrastructure improvements throughout the estate.
New development on currently vacant land.
New development to create natural surveillance to new and existing streets.
Improve ease of access through the estate.
New primary school and children’s centre.
New retail centre on Trafford Road.
New community facilities.
New houses and apartments, with emphasis on family housing.
Longer-term opportunity for mixed development on Ordsall Riverside.
The formal legal agreement between the city council and LPC Living was completed in March
2006. Nineteen potential sites were identified for development within the area, ranging from small
infill sites to substantial proposals on the Radcliffe, St Clements, Hulton Street and Ordsall District
centre sites.
It was agreed that capital receipts, anticipated section 106 monies from these sites, would be
invested in infrastructure works in the area.
An indicative programme of infrastructure works was identified, with the majority of funds
allocated to:
Highways works- specifically the East- West vehicle route and the North –South
pedestrian link.
Public open space improvements and environmental enhancement
Contribution to the costs of constructing the new primary school and children’s
centre
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Acquisition of land and premises to secure development sites.
Regeneration Case
“
The applicant’s agents have submitted a regeneration statement quantifying why the development
of this site should come forward at this current time. The regeneration statement and additional
observations includes a number of arguments in favour of development of the site as it will aid in
the regeneration of the wider area. These arguments are summarised as follows;
a) The proposed development will provide a genuine mix of housing tenures within an
existing built-up residential neighbourhood, as opposed to Council-owned properties
continuing to dominate, surrounded by new private development around its edges. This
will assist in creating a long-term commitment to the area by offering residents a
progressive choice within the local housing market not provided/proposed elsewhere
within Central Salford. The proposed housing mix is considered to be in general
accordance with Salford's Housing Planning Guidance which promotes the development of
3-bedroom properties. On a review of extant planning permissions within Central Salford,
it is evident that many proposed schemes fail to incorporate any form of 3 and 4 bedroom
family housing, despite the Council's current policy position. However, it is acknowledged
that in some cases permission was granted prior to the Housing Planning Guidance being
adopted. The proposed housing mix is considered to meet the requirements of Aim 1 of the
Council's UDP by providing an appropriate supply of housing in order to support the
stabilisation and expansion of the City's population;
b)
The proposed development will result in the re-development of an undervalued and wasted
area of informal open space, presently subject to constant problems of crime and anti-social
behaviour. It should be noted that Ordsall suffered from the 2nd highest number of vehicle
crimes in Salford between July 2005 and June 2006. The re-development of land subject to
crime and disorder will play an important role in overcoming the perception of crime in the
area, and act as a deterrent to individuals currently committing acts of crime;
c)
Residential development of the application site will offer a form of natural surveillance to
Ordsall Park directly opposite, and the adjacent St. Clements Church. The creation of
natural surveillance is considered a fundamental step forward in encouraging a greater use
of Ordsall Park by local residents, and to detract from vandalism of the Church
surroundings;
d)
The proposed development will significantly enhance the site's physical appearance and
amenity value, and concurrently benefit the wider built environment through adopting a
high-quality approach to design. Whilst acknowledging that improvements to the site as
open space would also enhance the site’s visual appeal, the majority of the site would
continue to suffer a lack of natural surveillance from surrounding dwellings. No guarantee
can therefore be offered that revitalised open space would be utilised more efficiently than
at present;
e)
The application site is accessible via a choice of transport modes, promoting sustainable
travel. These sustainable modes include walking, cycling, and public transport including
local bus and Metrolink services. Given the central location of the application site, each of
the aforementioned modes will present residents with an opportunity to access key
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
services, amenities and employment opportunities in nearby Manchester City Centre and
Salford Quays;
f)
Development of the brownfield and greenfield elements of the site will achieve the
comprehensive redevelopment of the site, and the efficient use of underused and poorly
maintained land as promoted through PPS3: Housing and Policy DP1 of the Regional
Spatial Strategy. Failure to develop the greenfield element of the site would significantly
constrain the overall amount of family accommodation currently proposed, and would fail
to resolve current concerns regarding a lack of surveillance and security.
g)
Central Salford is identified in the UDP as a major target area for re-development, focusing
primarily on under-used land and buildings. Given the derelict and unkempt nature of the
application site, its re-development for mixed housing provision is targeted specifically at
addressing local housing needs. This approach will contribute to the regeneration of
Central Salford, and the wider enhancement of the Ordsall area through concentrating a
choice of new housing within the existing Urban Area. The application site also represents
one of very few opportunities within Central Salford to develop new residential
apartments/houses overlooking an existing high-quality area of green space i.e. Ordsall
Park;
h)
The application site is located within the fully established Ordsall estate. The estate itself
comprises largely of housing built during the 1980's and 1990's. A small area to the north of
the estate contains surviving Edwardian terraced housing offering the only significant
variance within the stock. The vast majority of housing in the estate is arranged in small
clusters around cul-de-sacs, creating a lack of natural surveillance and interaction between
pockets of development. Many existing properties are in poor condition, and lack the
necessary capacity to accommodate the needs of Ordsall residents, in particular large
families. The development of a mix of new apartments and townhouses will provide a
wider choice of housing presently lacking in Ordsall, targeted at meeting the needs of
families, couples and single occupants. This approach will provide an equal opportunity for
people to live in and own a property they can afford, and which many other extant
permissions/developments fail to offer.
i)
Many available brownfield sites within Central Salford are located on the edge of existing
communities, as opposed to occupying central locations within the very heart of existing
residential neighbourhoods. This is evident through the number of extant permissions on
previously developed sites within Central Salford. Whilst these new and proposed
developments may provide for a high standard of City living, it is our opinion that they fail
to contribute towards the regeneration of existing residential communities. This is a key
objective which the development proposal seeks to address.
j)
The development of the application site will represent a key contributor and instigator to
the regeneration of the Ordsall Estate. The Ordsall Framework Plan indicates that in order
to deliver the required change within the area, development is required. The proposal
represents one of the initial elements of that process, and is vital in ensuring that other
interventions are more effective in their contribution. The development proposal is also
consistent with the guidelines of the Pathfinder Programme by directing new housing stock
within an identified Pathfinder Area to assist in the transformation of the area’s character
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
and revitalisation of the local housing market. This proposal could in turn act as a major
driver in attracting new families to Ordsall.
k)
Ordsall falls within the Central Salford area identified as suffering from significant
problems of deprivation, including low demand and obsolete housing. The provision of
20% on-site affordable housing is designed specifically to be within financial reach of
existing residents, whilst concurrently offering 3 and 4 bed family houses and apartments
for new and existing residents wishing to upgrade from houses/apartments elsewhere
within Ordsall and Central Salford.”
The Ordsall Framework for Improvement identifies the need for comprehensive redevelopment
within the Ordsall Estate to contribute towards its regeneration. The objectives of this Plan cannot
be successfully achieved by adopting a piecemeal approach to development. Given the scale of
regeneration required, the Hulton Street residential proposals will serve as a major catalyst towards
wider regeneration on additional available sites within Ordsall. This provides just one element of a
wider programme for the re-development for the Estate. The wider regeneration benefits that
development of the site will deliver are considered to significantly outweigh its loss as greenfield,
and is therefore a key component in the regeneration required of Ordsall. It is considered that
failure to develop the site would impact upon delivering the wider regeneration of the area for the
reasons outlined in the planning and regeneration statement i.e. it would result in the retention of
land in poor condition, a lack of surveillance, a failure to provide mix of housing urgently needed
etc.
At the same time however, the proposed residential development will not be sufficient in its own
right to deliver the scale of regeneration required, and thus additional sites will need to come
forward in the future to contribute towards the vision for Ordsall's regeneration. i.e. a balanced mix
of new housing in Ordsall, and that cannot be delivered through the development of this site alone.
On balance, while a proportion of this site is previously undeveloped, I am satisfied that a sufficient
case is made for the wider need for regeneration in the area and the provision of some affordable
family orientated accommodation, justifies its development.
Therefore, whilst I consider that the proposal where it would build upon Greenfield land to be
contrary to the thrust of policy ST11, I consider that the regeneration benefits to the wider area
which will also facilitate the development of existing brownfield sites, coupled with other
mitigating measures outlined below, to be sufficient to outweigh the presumption not to develop
part of this site at this time.
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 density across the whole of the site would be 79 dwellings per hectare. Whilst PPS 3 no longer
defines ‘appropriate densities’, as the previous PPG3 did, higher densities can be considered
appropriate in city centre location in close proximity to high frequency public transport
infrastructure.
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Given that this site is located on the edge of the regional centre and having regard to the existing
public transport infrastructure, I am satisfied that the density proposed is appropriate for this
location.
Housing Mix
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced
mix of dwellings within the local area.
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.
Policy H4 requires an element of affordable housing to be provided where there is an identified
need. The provision should be agreed through negotiation with the City Council.
The application site is located within Central Salford, an area that has been identified as the focus
for major regeneration and investment activity in the Spatial Framework in the UDP. Policy HOU1
of the Housing Planning Guidance (HPG) states that within this area of the city all new
developments should provide a broad mix of dwelling types but that apartments should only be the
predominant form of provision on sites in the most accessible locations within the area. Paragraphs
4.12 and 4.13 of the RJ to this policy suggest that the balance of new development has slipped too
far in favour of the provision of new apartments and therefore, to ensure a balanced supply of
accommodation, houses should normally be the predominant form of accommodation accounting
for some 50 – 60% of the units or 70-80% of the land area.
The application proposes a total of 157 (60%) apartments and 103 (40%) houses. However, as the
applicant has outlined in his Planning and Regeneration Statement I am reasonably satisfied that
this site commands a relatively high level of accessibility in terms of a choice of means of transport.
I would therefore have no fundamental objections to the mix of houses and apartments proposed.
The breakdown of accommodation is as follows:
56 – 1 bed apartments
72 – 2 bed apartments
29 – 3 bed apartments
95 – 3 bed houses
8 – 4 bed houses
The proposal would be constructed in 6 phases.
Phase 1 would include Block A and Block C and provide 73 dwellings. Block A would comprise of
the following:
15 one bedroom apartments
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
8 two bedroom apartments
4 three bedroom apartments
16 three bedroom townhouses
Phase 2 would include Block E providing 43 dwellings and would comprise of the following:
8 one bedroom apartments
12 two bedroom apartments
23 three bedroom townhouses
Phase 3 would include Block D providing 54 dwellings and would comprise of the following:
16 one bedroom apartments
8 two bedroom apartments
30 three bedroom townhouses
Phase 4 would include Block B and the public square providing 36 dwellings and would comprise
of the following:
8 one bedroom apartments
8 two bedroom apartments
12 three bedroom townhouses
8 four bedroom townhouses
Phase 5 would include Blocks F, G and H providing 54 dwellings and would comprise of the
following:
25 one bedroom apartments
9 two bedroom apartments
17 three bedroom apartments
3 three bedroom townhouses
Phase 1A would include amendments to the access and car parking facilities to St Clements Church
These figures equate to 21.5% 1 bed apartments, 27.7% 2 bed apartments and 51% of 3/ 4 bed
accommodation (both apartments and houses) and therefore the proposal will provide a good
balanced mix of dwellings in accordance with policy H1 of the UDP and HOU1 of the HPG. It also
accords with policy HOU2 of HPG which states that the majority of new houses should have at
least 3 bedrooms. All of the proposed houses would provide either 3 or 4 bed accommodation.
HOU2 also goes on to state that where apartments are proposed they should provide a broad mix of
dwelling sizes both in terms of the number of bedrooms and also the net residential floorspace of
the apartments. In paragraph 4.31 in the RJ to this policy it says that the majority of apartments
should normally have 2 or 3 bedrooms. As part of this application there would be 46% 2 and 3 bed
apartments and 18% three bed apartments.
In relation to the net floorspace of the apartments, a good mix of sizes is proposed with 49% being
57 sq metres or more in terms of floorspace which will make them more adaptable to changing
needs. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal fully accords with policy HOU2 of the HPG in
terms of its dwelling mix.
Affordable Housing
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
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.
The applicant has indicated that the proposal would include 20% affordable housing. Moreover,
the provision of affordable housing will be secured through the development agreement between
the applicant and the City Council. However, I have attached a condition requiring type and detail
of affordable provision to be agreed.
I am therefore satisfied that the proposal fully accords with policy HOU4 and HOU5 of the HPG in
terms of affordable housing provision.
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
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
setting of a listed building. Given that the proposal includes accommodation 5 storey in height, I
consider that it is appropriate to consider the scheme against this policy.
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 developer has submitted a design and access statement, one of the key concepts of the design
has been to maximise the number of dwellings overlooking Ordsall Park. The design and access
statement identifies this as a key element whilst acknowledging the need to respect the scale of the
neighbouring listed church. The result is that the block facing Ordsall Park provide one bedroom
apartments at ground floor level with family dwellings above. The design and access statement
states “This arrangement gives the opportunity for lower priced starter units to share the site’s best
aspect with larger family units, rather than being grouped together to the rear of the site…”
The public realm has benefited from the strong building lines providing good enclosure which
opens out only at public spaces. The central park should be an adequate size and offers people in
the area a different all year space in which they can gather. The design of the public space seems to
be interesting, offering users’ a variety of activities in the immediate vicinity.
It should be obvious to users in the area that traffic does not have the outright priority in this area.
However any details of materials for the hard landscaping strategy in the landscape design
statement would need to be conditioned. General arrangements include a Boulevard, a public
square and street pattern to respect the existing the pedestrian movements through the site and
existing sewer constraints.
The boulevard forms the spine of the proposed scheme and focuses on the main entrance of St
Clements church to the east and has the potential to link into future development opportunities to
the west of this site. The boulevard would include tree planting to mitigate the trees lost to facilitate
the development. Trees are discussed later in this report.
The proposed square provides a ‘civic’ sense to the new development, helps foster an individual
identity and allows for future occupiers to gather adjacent to a new processional route to the church.
The design and access statement states “The space has been developed with input from Greater
Manchester Police to ensure that the square functions as anticipated. The primary consideration is
the amount of passive surveillance on all sides with apartments positioned to the west providing a
high density block creating good overlooking”
The design of, while of a contemporary appearance, higher blocks have been included at key
corners and includes recognisable pitched roof forms, alluding to typologies of existing dwellings.
The position of these ‘feature’ corners provides an urban design solution to traditional gable
elevations and offers additional passive surveillance.
The relationship of Block F to the new roundabout is somewhat awkward. However, there are
existing services under the car park to the rear of this block. However, I am of the opinion that the
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
design, in the context of the whole development, is appropriate to provide a sense of place and
represent a well designed scheme.
As discussed earlier the density is high across the whole of the site. The applicant has also be
constrained by existing services which run through the site and due to existing contamination.
These constraints has influenced the siting of the road infrastructure and therefore the residential
blocks within. In order to mitigate shadowing within the internal courtyards of the blocks the
applicant has included a palette of light and contemporary materials. Moreover, blocks D and E are
three storey at the front and two storey at the rear.
A range of colour is used to enhance architectural detail. The gables are accentuated (particularly
blocks A, B and C) by the use of strong colours to highlight entrance points to the site. The facades
are also more open with large windows allowing greater passive surveillance. The typical range of
external materials for the whole of the site are listed below:
Three types of brickwork
White render
Coloured render
Aluminium rainscreen cladding
Aluminium framed double glazed windows
Painted MS/Aluminium handrails
Through coloured rainscreen board
Painted MS/Timber canopy
Timber Cladding
Aluminium mesh fence
I consider that the contemporary design, range of materials and use of strong vibrant colours to be
an excellent design solution and will generate an exciting sense of place, link into the existing
residential community and provide a high level of natural surveillance to Ordsall Park. Therefore,
with regard policies highlighted above, I consider that the scheme complies with these.
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 proposal would maintain the Council’s normal separation distances to all existing
neighbouring residents.
Internally, some of the separation distances are less than those normally applied by this Council.
The internal relationship of block C would be 8.5m apart. This is the closest relationship, blocks A
and B would be 11m and Block D and E would be 16m and 17m respectively.
However, Block C has been set out so that the main aspect is to the front of each dwelling and that
the rooms are all dual aspect allowing light from both the front and rear of the properties. As stated
earlier, this provides increased natural surveillance whilst safeguarding privacy to the rear of the
dwellings. Blocks A and B would not have main habitable aspects into the court yard created by the
positioning of this block. Moreover, internal boundary treatments would further safeguard future
residential amenity.
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
However, I consider that the design rationale and the need to create a sense of place coupled with
the innovative design solution detailed in this application, to be sufficient to ensure that future
occupiers will enjoy a sufficient level of amenity. I
As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of
safeguarding 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.
As discussed earlier the layout of the scheme has been set out having regard to the St Clements
Church through the inclusion of the boulevard. The proposal would include changes immediately
in front of the main church entrance which is currently used as a car park. This car park would be
moved to the north of the existing building allowing the uninterrupted view of the west elevation.
Existing cobbles are located in this area and will be relocated as part of the new north/south road. I
consider that these works would enhance the setting of the listed building and retain historical
continuity.
The proposed gable elevation of Block B facing the west entrance to the church would be clad in a
muted grey metallic finish which refers to the cobbles and church steeple. The long elevations of
block B continue in red brick matching those used on the church.
The height of the gable element of block B are replicated on each of the key corner elements. The
height would be 11.5m, similar to the eaves of the neighbouring church. I am satisfied that the
height is of an appropriate scale within the context of the church and would not detract from the
setting of the listed building. Moreover, 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 applicant has submitted a Crime Impact Assessment (CIS) with the application. The CIS has
been prepared by G.M.P Architectural Liaison Unit and is an advisory document that seeks to assist
the developer in designing a development in such a way as to reduce its impact on and susceptibility
to, crime and disorder. The report includes recommendation regarding the heights of fencing, walls
and railing defining defensible space and lighting levels for unadopted car parking areas. I consider
that appropriate conditions could secure the recommendations set out in the CIS.
Moreover, the conclusions of the CIS states “This scheme is consistent with the current principles
and standards of Secured by Design. Subject to the points being included in the scheme, if the
applicant applies in the future for Secured by Design certification, it should achieve it.”
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
In response to the application consultation, the Police Architectural Liaison advisor has considered
the proposals and considers “This has been the subject of pre planning discussions with this unit
and I can see no problems 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.
Secure car parking provision will be provided within the application site through off-road and
undercroft car parking facilities. The car parking standards applied to the proposed development
equate to 1 car parking space per dwelling. As stated earlier the design theme put forward by the
applicant is to provide activity within the street. I have already commented on the advice from the
Police Architectural Liaison Officer.
The applicant has also indicated that the trees which would be lost to accommodate the remediation
of the site would be replaced on a two for one replacement ratio. Many of the replacement trees
would be located adjacent to the proposed car parking and to delineate the public realm and road
network.
The application would require the closure of some footpaths within the site. I have consulted the
footpath groups regarding the proposal, I have not received any objection. Moreover, the proposal
will formalise access across the site and include measures to reduce crime. They include natural
surveillance and improved lighting.
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.
Trees
Policy EN10 states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of trees will not be
permitted.
The applicant has submitted a tree assessment in accordance with the requirements of EN10 and the
Councils adopted Supplementary Planning Document
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Area 1 consists of two halves; one is occupied by a low rise sheltered housing scheme with road
access; the other is a demolition site with the remains of some perimeter landscaping. There are a
number trees within this area.
Area 2 is a small strip of land, consisting of a small strip of public open space land at the western
end, and the remainder is an area of cleared demolition site. The majority of the trees in this area are
at the western end.
Area 3 is the main central area. It is a neglected public open space with a large quantity of rubbish
and litter across the site. There are visible signs of antisocial activities, with large blocks placed
across the entrances to prevent joyriding and other unsociable activities taking place. The area is
bisected by a number of footpaths, with a series of grassy mounds and groups of trees located
around the site.
Area 4 is an enclosed area around the church, with a large quantity of trees, which borders Hulton
Street and opens out onto Area 3.
A comprehensive tree survey has been submitted with the application, which outlines the general
situation with the site and the trees. The tree survey has been submitted by Bureau Veritas (Report
No.DRUX0087_Tree ReportR2), with the revised date of 30th January 2007, along with two
drawings (DDUX0087_01 & DDUX0087_02). The survey accurately points out that the
approximate age of the trees on the site is between 30 and 40 years old, and that the trees are
generally in a neglected condition; with signs of vandalism and mutilation (Section 3.3.1). Section
4 outlines the potential impact of the proposed development on the site, with reference to the
condition and health of the tree stock, as well as the present topography of the site. The report also
identifies a ground contamination issue (Section 4.1) which, in order to rectify it, will have a
serious effect on the tree population. The retention of the trees in Area 4 is envisaged, but the tree
stock in the other areas will be lost under this proposal. The report recognises that a total loss of
trees in Areas 1, 2 and 3 is inevitable with this scheme, but suggests that a strong landscape
infrastructure should be proposed. The suggestion from the proposed plans is that a suitable tree
replanting scheme has been incorporated into the development, but its success will depend on the
species choice and tree locations. Whilst the applicant has submitted a landscape strategy I have
attached a condition requiring the landscaping (including replacement trees) to be agreed at a later
stage.
The retention of the trees within Area 4 will retain some of the amenity for the site, whilst Ordsall
Park to the south has a row of mature trees along its boundary, which will add instant maturity of
the site, and provide a beneficial amenity to the development.
The applicant has indicated their commitment to providing replacement tree planting within the
scheme. The landscaping strategy provides for significant replacement in order to mitigate the loss
of the existing trees and to enhance the amenity of the area.
Therefore, in conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted
above regarding trees.
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Open Space Provision - Loss of Existing Recreation Space
The proposed development site includes 1.51ha of existing informal recreation land. This site was
identified in the Greenspace Strategy SPD as an existing greenspace site, but was not proposed to
meet any of the priorities set out in the SPD. The site is located adjacent to Ordsall Park and was
originally laid out as an extension to the park.
The site is considered to be used for informal recreation provision and amenity open space. It
includes mature and semi-mature trees and laid out grass and footpaths. It has suffered from a lack
of management and maintenance along with problems such as vandalism and tipping but despite
it’s neglect it is used for access and clearly falls within the scope of Policy R1.
UDP Policy R1 protects existing recreation land from development unless one of the exception
criteria can be met. For residential development this requires either:
adequate replacement recreation provision, of equivalent or better accessibility,
community benefit and management, to be made in a suitable location, to the satisfaction of
the city council; or
it to be clearly demonstrated that the site is surplus to recreational requirements, and the
development would facilitate the wider regeneration of the local area.
Whilst I appreciate the importance of this site in regeneration terms, its loss will nevertheless
exacerbate an existing shortfall in recreation provision, particularly in relation to formal recreation
and other youth and adult facilities.
In my view neither of the above exceptions has been satisfied, and therefore a financial contribution
to help to address shortfalls in provision elsewhere in the locality would normally be expected as
part of a Section 106 agreement.
To meet the requirements of UDP Policy R1, some form of adequate replacement provision should
be provided to compensate for the loss of the recreation land, the precise location and type of which
can be the subject of negotiation. However, the provision should be equal to 1.51ha of
informal/amenity open space, either as physical provision or as a financial contribution.
The financial contribution figure for compensatory provision would be £264,250 (£17.50 X
15,100m2).
I note that the Planning and Regeneration Statement refers to a range of infrastructure works agreed
between the Council and the applicant as critical to the implementation of further regeneration.
These comprise:
traffic calming measures along Hulton Street;
development of a new east/west route along the north of the site;
creation of a new public square within the development site; and
works to St Clements Church.
The Planning and Regeneration Statement, suggests that the infrastructure works will assist
towards the enhancement of pedestrian and cycle permeability both through and around the
application site, and will provide an opportunity for residents to access high grade areas of
greenspace within the wider Ordsall area, in particular Ordsall Park. It is claimed that the
infrastructure works will improve the access to the park for both local residents and visitors from
the north of the estate, improving security and safety to users. Whilst this may be true, none of these
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
could be considered to be adequate compensation for the loss of an existing informal/amenity
recreation site of 1.51 ha. but may be considered in arriving at an adjusted financial contribution.
Open Space Provision – Provision of new open space
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.
Based on the details provided in the application, the development would result in a total of 864
bedspaces. Based on the Planning Obligations SPD, this would generate an open space requirement
equal to:
0.63936ha of sports provision
0.216ha of children’s equipped provision
0.3456ha of informal open space provision
The on-site provision of a public square would provide 0.16ha of informal amenity open space
provision – although this appears to be more of a civic nature than a soft landscaped children’s
informal open space play area (and it is noted that part of the site appears to be dual-purpose for car
access in addition to civic amenity). Nevertheless, I accept that this reduces the requirement for
off-site informal open space provision to:
0.1856ha
I would not expect on-site provision for this development, as it is located adjacent to, and could be
served for most open space recreation needs by, Ordsall Park, which is an existing LEAP, NEAP,
Neighbourhood Park, and Sports Pitch, and a Proposed Local Semi-Natural Greenspace and
Proposed District Park.
Nevertheless, there is an existing shortfall of recreational facilities across the Ordsall
neighbourhood and the increase in population as a result of this development is such that it will
require a financial contribution to either improve the existing facilities, or towards agreed
alternative provision in the wider regeneration area.
The financial contribution for the outstanding open space requirement would be:
£454,160
(£540 X 864 = £466,560, less £12,400 for on-site informal open space provision)
Clearly, for a development in an area of low market demand, the open space requirements outlined
above (£264,250 (Policy R1) and £466, 560 (Policy H8)) are significant. It is also recognized that
the development proposal is delivering affordable housing and other local improvements that may
impact significantly on the scheme’s viability.
The application was submitted prior to the adoption of the Planning Obligation Supplementary
Planning Document (SPD). The adopted obligation policy is a material consideration in the
assessment of this application and would require a increased contribution.
The Planning Obligation SPD does recognize “that, in exceptional circumstances, the Council may
consider the benefits from a development outweigh the need for mitigation and may waive or
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
reduce contributions. However, it is for the developer to provide robust evidence to support their
case”
In this particular case the applicant has provided a detailed regeneration case for the development
of an element of Greenfield land. The need and benefits of the regeneration case have been
discussed earlier in this report. The applicant has also provided a viability report, which has been
considered by the Councils consultant valuer.
Financial Appraisal
The financial appraisal allowed for a notional S106 payment of £767,801 leaving a residual land
value of £28,737. However in order to enable a comprehensive development to be carried out on
the subject land it is necessary to carry out both on site and off site infrastructure works.
These works are summarised above. The total cost of these infrastructure works would be
£973,350.
It can be seen therefore that there is a shortfall between the available monies, that is the notional
S.106 Agreement, and the actual cost. This shortfall is being subsidised through the Infrastructure
Account. This account has been set up by the City Council and LPC Living Ltd to fund works
across the Ordsall Area. The account comprises of capital receipts from the sale of the Council's
land and the various Section 106 contributions from the sale of these and other sites.
In conclusion therefore, if any additional financial contributions are required from the site by way
of S.106 contributions or under other heads then the scheme will be unviable. If the City Council's
aspirations for the site are to be realised (demonstrated in the Ordsall Masterplan) then an increased
subsidy from the Infrastructure Account would be necessary which could preclude other
development opportunities in the Ordall Area.
Therefore, I consider that there is sufficient justification to demonstrate that the development of this
site without the provision of off site open space provision and without compensatory monies to
mitigate the loss of the existing open space provision in this particular instance.
CONCLUSION
Where it can be observed that the scheme would not provide sufficient mitigation required by
adopted policies, I am satisfied that there are sufficient other material considerations which
persuade me to recommend that planning permission be granted. I do not consider that there are
any other material planning considerations which outweigh this view.
RECOMMENDATION:
(a)
The Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services shall be authorised to enter into a
legal agreement under Section 38 and 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to secure highway
improvements.
Conditions
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
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 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. 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.
4. 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.
5. A scheme for the provision of recycling facilities for the apartments shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented prior to the occupation of any dwelling in that phase and shall be maintained
thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. No development shall be commenced unless and until a lighting scheme has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented and thereafter retained prior to the first occupation of the development.
7. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing the form and
appearance of all public realm works has been submitted for the approval of the Local Planning
Authority. The approved scheme shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted phasing
details. Once constructed the public realm works shall remain open for members of the public.
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
8. No development shall be started until all the trees within (or overhanging) the site, with the
exception of those trees clearly shown to be felled on the submitted plan, have been surrounded
by substantial fences which shall extend to the extreme circumference of the spread of the
branches of the trees (or such positions as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority). Such fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to
and approved in writing by Local Planning Authority and shall remain until all development is
completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil
shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.
9. Before each phase of the development hereby permitted is brought into use that part of the site
to be used by vehicles shall be laid out, drained, surfaced and sealed to the satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be made available at all times the premises are in
use.
10. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of bin
stores for the apartments have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such approved bin stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use
before the development is brought into use.
11. 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. The scheme shall
include full details trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment
and shall incorporate the principles set out in the landscaping strategy which accompanied the
application. The scheme shall also include phasing details for the implementation of the
landscaping. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and
phased provision. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to
the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
7. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
8. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
9. Standard Reason R013B Use of parking areas
10. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
11. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
APPLICATION No:
07/54162/FUL
APPLICANT:
Simon Bird
LOCATION:
Land Between 35-41Gore Crescent Salford M5 5LT
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a terrace of three dwellings together with associated
car parking and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
At a meeting of the Panel held on 5th April 2007 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
Since writing my original report I have received comments from the Strategic Director of
Environmental Services regarding contaminated land. I have appended an additional condition to
reflect this.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of three townhouses on the site of 37 and 39 Gore Crescent.
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
The site for development consists of two plots, formerly occupied by a pair of semi detached
dwellings which were demolished due to subsidence in 2003. One half of the site at 37 Gore
Crescent was granted consent for a single detached dwelling in 2006. (Ref: 06/53661/FUL)
To the West of the site are a series of pairs of semi-detached houses with 41 Gore Crescent being
the nearest property. To the East is 35 Gore Crescent, which is one half of a pair of semi detached
dwellings on a corner plot at the junction of Kensington Drive.
The rear elevations and windows of these dwellings face the development site at a 45 degree angle.
There are semi-detached houses on the opposite side of Gore Crescent. To the South of the site
there is vacant land. The site is currently secured by mesh fencing to the front and new timber fence
to the Eastern Boundary. It is proposed that new fencing is constructed to the Western and Southern
Boundaries of the site and a 1m timber fence with gates to the front of the site.
The applicant has amended the scheme so that the building is set lower than that which was
originally proposed. Therefore the ridge height of the roof is lower than that which was originally
proposed and is level with the ridge height of adjoining dwellings.
The proposed dwelling would have an eaves and ridge height which matches the existing houses in
the immediate locality and would be 2.5 storeys in height. The building has been set lower than
adjacent buildings to achieve matching ridge and eaves height. The proposed materials are Marley
Modern slates to the roof to match existing dwellings and details of the brickwork are to be
confirmed. The design of the dwellings incorporates soldier course above the windows and doors.
The proposed dwellings have an area of private garden and a driveway to the front. It is proposed
that the dwellings will each have four bedrooms with the master bedroom located in the roof space.
There are some trees on the site, however these are not mature and not of any special amenity value
which would warrant protection by a Tree Preservation Order.
SITE HISTORY
06/53661/FUL - Erection of one detached dwelling - Permitted
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
11 -19 Kensington Drive (Odds)
35 Gore Crescent
41 –48 Gore Crescent (Odds and Evens)
50& 52 Gore Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received letters of objection from 10 neighbours. The following issues have been raised:
The proposed building being out of keeping with buildings in the area
The applicant does not reside in the local area
Dismay that the Council accepted the application
The applicant had previously told residents that the proposal was to be for either detached
or semi detached houses
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
That the proposed housing type will ‘bring the area down’
Proximity of the proposed building to the boundary fences or nearby resident’s gardens.
That the properties may be rented instead of sold and this may attract certain groups.
The applicant has not specified the materials to be used for the development
Devaluation of properties.
Refusal of previous applications at neighbour’s properties due to terracing effect
Increase in traffic volumes leading to on-street car parking and congestion
The proposed dwelling would not have the same roofline as the existing
That the development would be overbearing
Loss of light due to the height of the proposed building
Impact of the development on the ‘fabric’ of the road
That the development is not in accordance with Policy DES1 of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
RSS Policies
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Areas
ST11 Location of New Development
A2
Cyclists Pedestrians and the Disabled
H1
Provision of New Housing Development
PPS3 Housing
Housing Planning Guidance
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issues associated with this proposal are the design of the dwellings including their height,
whether the building as a whole would be acceptable in this particular location, if the proposal
would unduly increase traffic volumes or congestion in the area, and whether the development
would have an unacceptable impact upon the visual or residential amenity of the area and whether
sufficient amenity would be provided for future occupants of the development.
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all developments should
respect the context of the area within which they are situated. In particular regard should be had to
the impact upon and relationship to the existing landscape, the character, scale and pattern of streets
and building plots, the relationship to existing buildings and features that contribute to townscape
quality, the quality of the proposed materials and the functional compatibility with adjoining land
uses.
Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all new developments and
alterations and extensions to existing buildings will be required to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. It also
requires that permission is not granted for development where it would have an unacceptable
impact upon the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Policy ST11 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that sites are brought forward for
development in a sequential order. The most preferable sites being existing buildings which can be
re-used or converted, or upon previously developed land which is well-served by a range of means
of transport, particularly walking cycling and public transport, and which are well related to
housing, employment, services and infrastructure.
Policy H1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that new housing development
should provide a high quality residential environment and an adequate level of amenity, in
particular focussing upon the size of the development, the physical characteristics of the site and the
accessibility of the site and its location in relation to jobs and facilities.
Policy A2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all new development makes
adequate provision for cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled.
Policy HOU1 of the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance states that within West
Salford, Broughton Park, Claremont and the Northern part of Weaste and Seedley, the large
majority of dwellings should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
Policy HOU2 states that the majority of new dwellings should provide a minimum of three
bedrooms.
Policy DP1 states that New development and other investment in infrastructure and services should
be located so as to make the most effective use of land, promote appropriate mixes of uses within a
site and its wider neighbourhood, make efficient use of transport facilities and assist
people to meet their needs locally.
Location of the proposed development
The proposed development would involve the re-use of brownfield land therefore would be in
accordance with Criteria 2 of Policy ST11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the
guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) which seeks to prioritise the
development of such land over land which has not been previously developed (Greenfield land).
The site is within the ward of Weaste and Seedley which is classed as Central Salford in the
Adopted Housing Planning Guidance. In this area it is preferable that a mix of dwellings is
provided with the most accessible locations being occupied by apartments. However, it is
considered that the dwelling houses are the most appropriate solution for this as it is located within
a row of houses.
The proposal site is accessible by foot, bicycle and by a choice of means of public transport to a
number of centres including Salford, Eccles, and Swinton. I consider that the site is well served by
a wide range of facilities and employment and therefore would be in accordance with Policy ST11
of The Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
I consider that the positioning of the proposed dwelling would respect the general building line and
would not unduly affect the character of the area. I consider that the proposed use would be in
keeping with the adjoining land uses and the overall character of the area. The design of the
dwelling is such that it would not look out of place and it is considered that by reducing the height
of the building as a whole so that ridge and eaves height match adjacent dwellings that the proposal
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
would not have a significant or negative effect upon the character of the area or the streetscene.
Therefore I am of the opinion that the development would be in accordance with Policy DES1 of
the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Traffic Congestion and On-Street Parking
Objections have been raised relating the potential increase in on-street parking caused by the
development. The adopted car parking standards require that a maximum of two car parking spaces
are provided for each dwelling. The proposal incorporates one car parking space per dwelling and I
am satisfied that there would be adequate off street parking for residents. I have no objections to the
proposal on highway safety grounds.
Amenity
Objections have been raised in relation to a loss of light and overshadowing and that the building
will be overbearing. There would remain 22 metres from the front of the proposed building to the
habitable room windows of houses opposite. I do not consider therefore that there would be any
detrimental impact on these neighbours. Although the proposed building would be within one
metres of the side boundaries of the site, there are no habitable room windows proposed in the side
elevations of the building. There are no habitable room windows in the side elevation of the
adjacent property at number 41. Number 35 Gore Crescent is set at a 45 degree angle from the
proposed building and at its closest point there would be 13 metres between number 35 and the
proposed building. There are also no windows proposed for the side elevation facing number 35.
For these reasons I do not consider that there would be any loss of amenity to neighbours in terms
of privacy and overlooking. The decking to the rear of the dwellings has been removed from the
proposal.
The proposed dwellings would extend past the rear building line of number 41, however it is
considered that the difference is not such that it would detrimentally impact upon the amenity of the
adjacent neighbour and that the distance between the proposed building and number 41 is sufficient
to remove any overshadowing.
The development includes the provision of a garden for each of the properties to the rear which
would provide an adequate amount of private amenity space. It is also considered that the proposed
development would allow a sufficient level of residential amenity for future occupiers in terms of
privacy, light and space. I therefore consider that the proposal would be in accordance with Policy
DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
There are some trees to the rear of the site, however these are small and not mature and have no
special amenity value, therefore it is considered that they are not worthy of protection by a Tree
Preservation Order. The development does not include the removal of any of the trees on the site.
Other objections included the design of the dwelling being terraced dwellings in an area which is
predominantly semi-detached or detached dwellings. I do not consider that the house type would
have a significant detrimental impact upon the character of the area. but the initial design being
higher than existing buildings in the immediate area. The applicant has reduced the height of the
building so that it relates better to the height of the neighbouring dwellings. I consider that the
amended scheme is more acceptable in design terms and would have a significantly lesser impact in
terms of building mass than that which was originally proposed. I therefore consider that the
amended proposal is acceptable in terms of massing and height.
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Objectors also raised the issue that the development would result in a building which has a higher
ridge height than existing buildings in the immediate area. The applicant has amended the scheme
so that the ridge height is the same as houses in the immediate area.
It was also identified that materials for the development have not been specified within the
application. A condition has been attached to require that samples of materials are provided and
approved in writing prior to the commencement of development. This will ensure a quality finish
for the development
Objections were also raised in relation to devaluation of neighbour’s properties, the fact that the
applicant does not reside in the area, and the refusal of previous applications at neighbour’s
properties. These issues are not considered material planning considerations for this development
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has addressed the issue of the building being overbearing by reducing its overall
height to match those of the adjacent dwellings.
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposed development in its amended form would not have a visually
intrusive impact nor would it be an overbearing or obtrusive feature in the streetscene. It is
considered that the proposed development would be in keeping with the character of the local area
and would not unduly affect the amenities of nearby residential occupiers or cause any issues of
highway safety. I consider that the proposal is in accordance with all of the relevant Policies within
the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Housing Planning Guidance, and that there are no
other material considerations that outweigh those policies.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03Y Samples of materials
3. Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings the windows within the side elevations shall be
obscurely glazed and maintained thereafter.
4. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 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.
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
5. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a preliminary risk
assessment on the potential for on site contamination has been undertaken and agreed by the
Local Planning Authority. If the preliminary risk assessment identifies potential contamination
a detailed intrusive site investigation should be carried out In accordance with the following:
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.
The applicant/developer is requested to contact the Councilæs Environmental Protection Unit
as soon, as is practicable should unsuspected contamination be encountered during the
development of the site.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy
DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. 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.
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission relates to amended plans received 21.3.07 which show a reduction in height of
the of the proposed buildings.
APPLICATION No:
07/54061/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Bull
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 5 Kent Road Cadishead M44 5YH
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a detached bungalow
WARD:
Cadishead
At a meeting of the Panel held on 15th March 2007 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a plot of land at 5 Kent Road in Cadishead.
The site is currently occupied by a two-storey semi detached dwelling
and a series of single storey, detached outbuildings. Vehicular
access to the site is via Kent Road, a cul-de-sac. The site is bounded
on all sides by residential properties. It is proposed to split the
plot in order to erect a detached dormer bungalow, which would have
a footprint of 10.1m by 6.5m and would measure 6m at the ridge and
2.2m at the eaves. The two car parking spaces would be provided for
future occupants of the proposed bungalow. These spaces would be
accessed via the existing access.
SITE HISTORY
An application for the erection of a detached bungalow on the site was refused in September 2006
(ref 06/53197/FUL). This application was refused for the following reasons –
1. The proposed development would, by virtue of its size and siting, have a detrimental impact on
the amenity of future residents of the proposed dwelling. The proposal would therefore be contrary
89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES7 of the Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
2. The proposed development would, by virtue of its size and siting, have an adverse impact upon
the residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents and it would prejudice the
future development opportunities of the neighbouring sites. The proposal would therefore be
contrary to Policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Insufficient details of the existing and proposed site levels have been submitted to enable the
implications of the proposed development to be assessed.
4.
The siting of the proposed bungalow to the rear of 5 Kent Road would not provide for
adequate natural surveillance and as a result would lead to conditions prejudicial to designing out
crime and the fear of crime and compromise the living conditions of any future occupants contrary
to policies DES1 and DES10 of the adopted UDP and the Council's SPD on crime.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
9, 9A, 11, 11A, 13, 13A, 15 and 15A Melville Road
1 to 8 Kent Road, including 7A and 8A
13, 15, 17, 17A and 19 Buckingham Road
Councillor C Hudson, Councillor J Hunt and Councillor K Mann were also notified of the
application.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to conditions
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised –
The proposed bungalow does not have a separate access.
The access to the property is too narrow to allow access by the emergency services
Increased traffic flow in the cul-de-sac
The proposed bungalow is out of character with the area
Disruption during the construction phase
Councillor Mann does not feel that the site is suitable for a detached bungalow. He has therefore
requested that the application be considered by Panel.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other Policies - DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
DP3 Quality in New Development
SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
The following policies of the Draft RSS – The North West Plan (March 2006) are considered to be
of relevance:
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 - Location of New Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; and whether the proposal complies with the
relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with each of these issues in
turn.
Principle –
Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land. This is
re-iterated in Draft Policy DP1.
Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city’s housing stock is able to
meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford.
Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and
conversion of existing buildings been the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
The Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing states that in this area, West Salford, the majority of
units within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
A semi-detached property and a series of single storey outbuildings currently occupy the site. The
site is therefore previously developed and consequently the proposals to redevelop the site are in
accordance with Policy ST11.
With regards to Policy H1 of the adopted UDP and the Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing
and the mix of units proposed the proposed development would provide a detached bungalow. The
91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
proposed development is therefore in accordance with Policy H1 and the Council’s Planning
Guidance on Housing, as it would make a positive contribution towards the mix of dwellings in the
locality, the majority of which are two storey semi detached properties and flats.
Design –
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical
context and to respect the character of the surrounding area. In
assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy,
regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship
to existing buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed
materials.
Policy DES10 of the adopted UDP states that development will not be
permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime, antisocial
behaviour and the fear of crime and support personal and property
safety.
The proposed dormer bungalow would measure 2.2m at the eaves and it
would be 6m at the ridge. The bungalow would be a gable-ended building.
The design of the proposed bungalow is simple but acceptable. The
majority of properties in the vicinity of the site are two storey
semi-detached properties with flat roofs. While the bungalow differs
in design from those it its vicinity I do not have any concerns with
the proposed development from a street scene perspective as the
proposed siting is such that the bungalow would be set back in the
site, screened from the public realm by the existing buildings on Kent
Road.
Given the low visibility of the bungalow from the public realm it is
proposed to install security gates, external lighting and an intruder
alarm in order to overcome design and crime issues. I am satisfied
that the security measures proposed would secure the site and ensure
that the proposed bungalow is not vulnerable to crime.
The proposed materials would consist of brick, UPVC windows and roofing tiles. I have attached a
condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and approved prior to
the commencement of development to ensure that they accord with those of surrounding buildings
and that they are of a suitably high quality.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have
a positive impact upon the visual amenity of the area in accordance
with policies DES1 of the adopted UDP.
Amenity Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users
with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development that would have an
92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments will not normally be permitted.
In order to facilitate the proposed development the plot of 5 Kent
Road would be divided into two. Despite reducing the land associated
with 5 Kent Road I am satisfied that the occupants of this property
would be provided with adequate car parking (2 spaces) and a
satisfactory level of useable amenity space in the form of a rear
garden. The residential amenity the occupants of 5 Kent Road would
not be adversely affected by the introduction of the proposed bungalow
as the bungalow would be sited away from the property, fronting onto
the garden area of 5 Kent Road from which it would be set 10.5m.
The proposed bungalow would be set 9.3m from the common boundary with
numbers 7 and 7A Melville Road, along which a 1.8m high fence runs.
I am of the opinion that this level of separation is sufficient to
ensure that the occupants of numbers 7 and 7A Melville Road would not
experience a reduction in the residential amenity they currently
enjoy.
The proposed bungalow would be sited 1.6m from the common boundary
with the properties at 9, 9A, 11 and 11A Melville Road. The properties
at 9, 9A, 11 and 11A Melville Road have 21m long gardens. As a result
the introduction of the proposed bungalow would not reduce the amount
of light received in the habitable room windows contained within the
rear elevation of these properties. With regards to shadowing given
the length of the gardens and the siting of the proposed bungalow to
the west of the properties at 9, 9A, 11 and 11A Melville Road I am
satisfied that the useable garden area of these properties would not
receive a significant level of overshadowing. Consequently I am of
the opinion that the residential amenity the occupants of 9, 9A, 11
and 11A Melville Road currently enjoy would not be adversely affected
by the proposed development.
At its closest the blank gable end of the proposed bungalow would be
located 16.5m from the properties at 7 and 7A Kent Road. The properties
at 7 and 7A Kent Road do not have any habitable room windows in the
elevation fronting the application site. This, in combination with
the fact that the proposed bungalow runs along the driveway of 7/7A
Kent Road from which it would be located 1.6m at its closet, increasing
to 7.5m, means that I am satisfied that the proposed development would
not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants
of 7 and 7A Kent Road can reasonably expect to enjoy.
Policy DES7 also requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level
of amenity.
I am satisfied those future occupants of the proposed bungalow would
receive adequate light in their habitable rooms and that they would
be provided with adequate outlook from their habitable rooms. The
93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
provision of a rear garden means that future occupants of the proposed
bungalow would also be provided with a reasonable amount of useable
amenity space.
Access
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for
disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the
Council’s maximum standards.
2 car parking spaces would be provided for future occupants of the
proposed bungalow. The proposed car parking and access would be laid
out in such a way that I do not have any objections to the proposed
development on highway safety grounds. I do not consider that the
introduction of the proposed bungalow would have an adverse impact
upon traffic flow along Kent Road.
Other Issues –
With regards to concerns over noise and disruption during the
construction phase a condition has been attached that requires a
considerate contractors management plan to be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement
of development. This should ensure that residents do not experience
significant levels of noise and disturbance during the construction
phase.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of
the site for residential purposes is acceptable. I am of the opinion
that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted
UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this
finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved and
that the decision be delegated to the Chair following the expiration
of the neighbour notification period.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the walls and roof of the development shall be submitted to and approved in
94
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
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. 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.
5. 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, and no development or activities related or incidental thereto shall take place on the
site in contravention of such site operating statement.
6. No external lighting shall be installed unless and until a scheme has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented and thereafter in accordance with the approved details.
7. Prior to the first occupation of the bungalow hereby permitted the 2 car parking spaces shown
in the approved plan (drawning Number 251) shall be provided within the curtilage of the site.
The spaces shall be made available at all times whilst the premises are in use.
95
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 in Article 3, Schedule 2, Class A part (d) no windows shall be
inserted in the side elevation of the dwelling that faces the properties on Melville Road without
prior grant of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
6. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
7. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
8. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
APPLICATION No:
07/54168/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Darren Barlow
LOCATION:
3 Woodstock Drive Worsley M28 2NP
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of a two storey
side/rear extension and single storey rear extension. External
96
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
alterations including the recladding of the exterior and
alterations to the roof profile.
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached dwelling at 3 Woodstock Drive, Worsley. It is located within
the Worsley Village Conservation Area. The site is located on the western side of Woodstock Drive
within a primarily residential area. The property to which this application relates is a 1970 ‘chalet’
style house constructed of a dark brown brick and white rendered panels, it is typical of the other
houses within the street. The surrounding properties within the area are of a similar age, however
the character of this street is distinct from the remainder of the conservation area.
The proposal is for the demolition of an existing conservatory and erection of a two-storey side/rear
extension, single storey rear extension, the recladding of the exterior of the building and alterations
to the roof profile, and window openings. The resultant building would be of contemporary design
and appearance, unique to the street scene.
It is proposed that the two-storey extension would be located on the southern elevation to the rear of
the existing garage; it would project 4.9m from the rear elevation of the existing garage and would
extend a further 1.2m from the main rear elevation. The two-storey element would contain
protruding roof lights, hidden behind a parapet wall at roof level, large glazed windows to the rear
elevation at first floor and ground floor level.
A single storey rear/ side extension is proposed on the northwest corner of the building along the
boundary with no. 5 Woodstock Drive to provide a bin storage area. The proposed bin store would
extend 3m along the boundary with no. 5 and 2.6m in width. A small single storey rear extension is
proposed between the two-storey element and the bin store it would extend 1.2m from the rear of
the property and would extend 6.4m in length.
In addition to the structural extensions to the rear of the property the application also proposes the
restructuring and cladding of the faēade of the building, including the re-cladding of the building in
a contemporary dark stained timber
The proposal would contain two non-habitable room windows at first floor facing onto no.5
Woodstock Drive and there would be no windows in the side elevation facing onto no.1
Woodstock.
SITE HISTORY
In 1999 an application was approved for demolition of an existing conservatory and replacement
with a single storey rear extension.
In 2004 an application was approved for erection of a conservatory at the rear of the dwelling.
PUBLICITY
97
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
A Site Notice was displayed on the 28th February 2007.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1. 1 Woodstock Drive;
2. 2 Woodstock Drive;
3. 4 Woodstock Drive;
4. 5 Woodstock Drive;
5. 2 Bay Tree Avenue;
6. 4 Bay Tree Avenue;
7. 6 Bay Tree Avenue.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter in response to the planning application publicity requesting additional
information, to which I have responded. I have also received 7 objections in response to this
application. The following issues have been raised:concerns as to the re-cladding of the proposed building that it may effect the value of
surrounding properties,
it is unsympathetic to the surrounding conservation area,
it will increase the bulk of the existing development,
it will create additional windows,
the size of the proposed two storey rear extension and re-cladding of the existing building
will create a much greater dominant building,
the increase in glazing area and glass frontage to the rear of the proposed rear extension
will have an impact on the privacy of properties to the rear
the proposed perimeter fence with an electric gate is out of keeping with the rest of
Woodstock Drive.
A specific objection regarding the impact on no. 5 Woodstock Drive was received regarding the
retention of the existing or the reduction of the existing parapet height.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CH3 –Works within a Conservation Area
Other policies: DES1- Respecting Context
DES7- Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8- Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
It is considered that the main planning issues relating to this
application are the impact of the proposed development on the amenity
of adjoining residents and impact of the development on the character
of the street scene and the character and appearance of Worsley
Village Conservation Area.
98
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Design
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings the character of
streets, impact on views, scale and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
The applicant’s property lies within Worlsey Village an area
designated as a conservation area under Policy CH3 of the Adopted UDP.
Policy CH3 states that development will only be permitted in a
conservation area where it would preserve or enhance the character
or appearance of the conservation area. No.’s 1-7 Woodstock Drive are
of an identical design built in the mid 1970’s consisting of red brick,
white render and a deep overhang that encompasses a large timber
balcony. The even numbered properties on the opposite side of
Woodstock Drive are large detached red brick properties. The
applicant proposes to re-clad the exterior of the property with a
white/grey cement render along the side elevations of the property
and dark stained timber ‘overcladding’ on the front and rear
elevations. The alterations seek to create a modern building using
the current property as its starting point. The design takes important
references from surrounding properties whilst refraining from
copying older styles. The result is an innovative form that whilst
making a bold statement of intent still plays an integral role in the
unity of the street.
The main features that should be seen as important are:
-Height and Massing;
-Plot Size;
-Voids between properties;
-Building line;
- Voids in brick work for Garage and above Garage;
- White detailing;
-Asymmetrical roof line.
The proposed extension is clearly a building of its time that takes
account for every point in the above list. Obvious references are made
to the surrounds whilst being distinct and bold. In Urban Design terms
the building conforms to DES1 Respecting Context and DES8 Alterations
and Extensions. The building successfully avoids pastiche
development and updates the 1970’s shell. The scale of the alterations
should mean that the property would be seen as a whole. PPG 15
encourages the use of modern architecture and forms in conservation
areas. The avoidance of pastiche designs and innovative responses to
individual sites should be encouraged. The diversity of the
neighbourhood will increase and the new addition will have a positive
contribution to the neighbourhood.
Amenity
99
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
Policy DES7 of the Adopted UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would
have an adverse impact upon the occupiers or users of other developments in the vicinity or an
unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Policy DES8 of the Adopted UDP states that permission to extend, or
alter an existing building will only be permitted if it respects the
general scale, character and proportions of the existing building and
compliments the surrounding area.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) House Extensions was adopted on the
19th July 2006. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards
maintained when determining householder applications.
The proposed two storey rear/side extension would not project beyond no.1 Woodstock Drive’s
existing single storey extension and would not encroach a 45 degree line taken from the mid-point
of habitable room windows at first floor in the rear elevation of no.1 Woodstock Drive. The two
storey proposal would also not encroach a 45-degree line taken from the mid point of the habitable
room windows in the rear of no. 3 Woodstock Drive. I consider that the proposal complies with the
principle of policies HE6 and HE7, of the Supplementary Planning Document, for two storey rear
extensions and would therefore not result in an unacceptable loss of light or be overbearing for
neighbouring residents.
Policy HE5 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions states that
planning permission will not normally be granted for single storey rear extensions that project
beyond a 45 degree line drawn from either the mid-point of any principal window of a ground floor
habitable room in adjoining or adjacent dwellings or a point 3m along the common boundary from
the rear elevation of the adjoining or adjacent dwellings. The single storey rear extension complies
with policy HE5 as it would maintain a 45 degree line taken from the mid-point of the habitable
room window at ground floor in the rear elevation of no. 5 Woodstock Drive.
Policy HE1 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on House
Extensions states that planning permission will not normally be
granted for extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 21m
between facing principal windows of habitable rooms and a minimum
distance of 10.5m between the principal windows of any habitable room
of the proposed extension and the common boundary with the facing
property. The proposed rear elevation of the proposal would contain
habitable room windows. These would be in access of 11m from the rear
boundary and 28m to no. 4 Baytree Avenue to the rear. I am therefore
satisfied the proposal complies with HE1 and would not have an
unacceptable impact on the privacy residents at no. 4 Baytree Avenue
currently enjoy.
I am therefore of the opinion that the proposed development will not
have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the character and
appearance of the conservation area.
100
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
CONCLUSION
The proposal accords with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions
and policies CH3, DES7 and DES8 of the Adopted UDP. I consider the design of the proposed
extension to be acceptable and I am also satisfied that the proposal would not result in an
unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of overlooking or
loss of privacy and would not detract from or fail to conserve the appearance or appearance of the
Worsley Village Conservation Area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To safeguard the amenity of the conservation area in accordance with Policy CH3 of Salford
City Council's Adopted UDP.
APPLICATION No:
07/54083/HH
APPLICANT:
Mohammed Ayub
LOCATION:
37 Wensley Road Salford M7 3GJ
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear
extension
WARD:
Kersal
101
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
At a meeting of the Panel held on 5th April 2007 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY
PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property on Wensley Road in Salford 7.
This application seeks to erect a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension. The
proposed two storey side extension would provide a study and wc at ground floor and two
bedrooms at first floor. The first floor element would be set back 2m from the front of the house, the
ground floor would be flush with the front of the house. The proposed extension would project
2.35m from the side of the property and would be 5.3m in length. The proposed single storey rear
extension would contain a kitchen and a dining room, it would project 3.3m from the rear elevation
and would be 8.4m in width.
The proposed extensions would be situated only from the common boundary with 35 Wensley
Road and 1.5m from the boundary with 39 Wensley Road. Along the boundary with 35 and 37
Wensley Road are fences that measure 2m in height.
SITE HISTORY
There have been no previous applications on this site
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flat 11,12 Wensley Court, 32, 34, 35, 39 Wensley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter in response to the planning application publicity from the occupier of 35
Wensley Road. Concern has been expressed that the proposed extension would be built on land
belonging to her.
I have had a request from Councillor Wilson that this application be considered by the Panel. He
objects to the application on the grounds that the proposal is over-development’.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
102
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the design of the proposed
extension is acceptable; whether there would be any unacceptable detrimental impact on
neighbours and residents and whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the
UDP and the House Extensions SPD.
Policy DES1 of the Adopted UDP requires developments to respond to their physical context and to
respect the character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply
with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing
buildings the character of streets, impact on views, scale and the quality and appropriateness of
proposed materials.
Policy DES7 of the Adopted UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would
have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
Policy DES8 of the Adopted UDP states that permission to extend, or alter an existing building will
only be permitted if it respects the general scale, character and proportions of the existing building
and compliments the surrounding area.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) House Extensions was adopted on the
19th July 2006. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards
maintained when determining householder applications.
The first floor element of the side exension would be set back by 2m from the front of the main
house wall in accordance with Policy HE8 of the House Extensions SPD. There would be one study
room window at ground floor in the front elevation and one bedroom window at first floor. Given
that there are existing bedroom windows in the front elevation of the house and the first floor
element of the extension is set back by 2m I do not consider that the introduction of these windows
would result in any loss of privacy to the residents of the property facing number 32 Wensley Road.
To the rear of the application property is a brook and Prestwich Golf course. There would be one
bedroom window in the rear elevation of the proposed extension. Given that there are no properties
to the rear, there would be no issues of overlooking or loss of privacy.
The adjacent dwelling, 35 Wensley Road, has a single storey rear extension that projects 2m from
the rear elevation. The proposed single storey rear extension does not project beyond 3m from the
rear elevation of the adjacent dwellings extension. This is in accordance with Policy HE5 of the
House Extensions SPD. The adjacent dwelling, 39 Wensley Road, has habitable room windows in
the rear elevation the proposed extension does not project beyond a 45 degree splay drawn from
this window, which is in accordance with Policy HE5. There would be one kitchen window in the
rear elevation. Given there are no properties to the rear there would be no issues of over looking or
loss of privacy.
With regard to the concerns raided by the adjacent neighbour it has been explained that boundary
disputes are a civil matter and not something the Local Planning Authority could get involved in.
The agent for the application has confirmed that certificate A, which accompanies the application,
103
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
was correct and that any development would be within the curtilage of 37 Wensley Road. In
addition, the agent has submitted amended plans reducing the side extension by 0.1m so that it does
not encroach on the boundary.
CONCLUSION
The proposal complies with policies contained within the Council’s Supplementary Planning
Document: House Extensions and policies DES1, DES7 and DES8 of the Adopted UDP. I consider
the design of the proposed extension to be acceptable and am satisfied that the proposal would not
have any unacceptable detrimental impact on the neighbouring residents. I therefore recommend
the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that their site lies within 250m of a former landfill site. In the event
that landfill gas is migrating, suitable precautions need to be undertaken to avoid the ingress of
landfill gas into the new extension or existing house. It is strongly advised that the detailed
design specification incorporates suitable measures to mitigate against the ingress of landfill
104
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
gas. Any measures would be expected to conform to the standards contained in the 1990
Building research Establishment Report "Construction of new buildings on gas-contaminated
land"
105
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
106
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19th April 2007
107