PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54057/FUL
APPLICANT:
Alan Norwood
LOCATION:
Wentworth High School Wentworth Road Eccles M30
9BP
PROPOSAL:
Replace existing boundary fencing with 2.4m high
palisade fencing
WARD:
Eccles
Following deferral at the Panel meeting of the 5th April 2007 where members
recommended that the design of the fence is altered, and a subsequent meeting with The
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer, the school’s Business Manager
and the Salford City Council School Security Co-ordinator, the applicant has amended the
scheme. The alterations include a change in the style of fencing from the original 2.4 metre
high palisade fencing to 3 metre high vertical bar railings along the boundary with
Wentworth Road and along the Western boundary at the end of Westminster Road. It is
proposed that a second fence also of vertical railing design is erected at a height of two
metres in from the Northern and Western site boundaries to create an area between the two
fences where defensive planting can take place. It is proposed that the area between the two
fences is planted with thorny species which would create a barrier to deter intruders as the
single fence at present is not sufficient to ensure this. The school will be responsible for the
upkeep of the area between the two fences and this area will remain part of the school
grounds.
I consider that the amended scheme is less visually intrusive and would have a lesser
impact upon the quality of the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area, whilst still providing an
adequate level of security for the school. I consider that the proposed fences would be in
accordance with all of the relevant policies within the Unitary Development Plan and the
requirements of the Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’.
I subsequently recommend that the amended scheme is approved 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. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the colour of the fences
hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The fences shall be powder coated in the approved colour
prior to installation and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 22.05.2007 which
shows an amended fence line and vertical railings
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
Permission is sought for the erection of a 2.4 metre high security fence at the front
boundary, rear entrance and boundary adjacent to the playing field at Wentworth High
School in Eccles. The design of the fencing is proposed to be palisade. Weld mesh fencing
currently exists at the site. The change in fence types is required to reduce the likelihood of
crime and vandalism which the school has fallen victim to in the last twelve months.
Replacement of the existing fencing is also required to increase security for staff and pupils
of the school.
It is proposed that the fencing is constructed of polyester powder coated galvanized steel
palisading and would be powder coated in green to match the existing fencing. The access
to the school would remain the same as the existing gates would be replaced by gates to
match the proposed fencing in the same location.
The site is within a predominantly residential area and houses on Chatsworth and
Wentworth Road would either back onto, or face the proposed fencing. To the North of the
site is a wooded area.
SITE HISTORY
99/40254/DEEM3 - Erection of two sections of 2.4 metre high palisade fencing - Permitted
04/49421/DEEM3 - Erection of 2.4m high boundary fencing adjacent to Chatsworth Road
entrance and on part of northern boundary – Permitted
CONSULTATIONS
Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No Comments
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
7-13 Portland Road (Odds)
36 Westminster Road
45 Westminster Road
1 Wentworth Road
2-32 Wentworth Road (Evens)
13-25 Salisbury Road (Odds)
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
75-85 Salisbury Road (Odds)
18-24 Chatsworth Road (Evens)
21-25 Chatsworth Road (Odds)
33-37 Chatsworth Road (Odds)
34-40 Chatsworth Road (Evens)
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection to the proposal. The following issues have been
raised:
The school will have a ‘prison-like’ appearance and would not be welcoming
Eyesore and loss of view
Loss of value to property
Fencing already in place and the need to replace it
Intruders access the site over the gate rather than via the existing railings
Wentworth High should seek to utilise security staff and site security more
effectively in liaison with the police.
I have received one letter in support of the application stating that the new fencing would
bring welcome peace of mind.
Councillor Alan Broughton has formally requested that the application is decided by the
Planning and Regulatory Panel giving the reason that the school has recently been
vandalised and a stronger fencing type will help to reduce this.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific Policies: Adopted Ellesmere Park Supplementary Planning Document
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
SPD Policy DC16 – Boundary Treatments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the development is
acceptable in terms of design especially having regard to the requirements of the Adopted
Supplementary Planning Document relating to Ellesmere Park, and if the proposed fencing
would have a negative impact upon the amenity of the area and users and occupiers of it.
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all developments
should respect the context of the area within which they are set and where possible
contribute positively to the landscape character type.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that developments do not
impact detrimentally upon the amenity of users or occupiers of the development or
occupiers of adjoining uses.
Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that all development
should be designed to a high standard, and discourage crime, the fear of crime and anti
social behaviour. Policy DC16 requires that boundary treatments are designed to a high
standard and are visually permeable to reduce areas of concealment where criminal activity
can occur.
The Adopted Supplementary Planning Document which relates to Ellesmere Park has the
function of ensuring that the character and environment of Ellesmere Park and its
individual buildings, landscape and streets is enhanced and that new development within
Ellesmere Park is built to the highest standard. The SPD is designed to raise awareness of
the need for good design in the Ellesmere Park Area.
A key characteristic of Ellesmere Park are the strong boundary features which include low
walls and significant landscaping. Although it is recognised that such a treatment is not
feasible for a school which has different security needs bearing in mind the site is not
always occupied, the design of the palisade fence which is usually associated with
industrial areas, is considered unacceptable.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the school needs protection from crime and vandalism
Policy DC16 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document Design and Crime states
that crime prevention measures should not be at the expense of overall design quality, and
requires that proposals are not permitted where they would have a hostile appearance or
would engender a fortress like atmosphere. I consider that the proposed fencing would
have an unacceptable impact upon the outlook of a number of residents, and from those
houses whose rear gardens back onto the proposed fencing there would be a significant
enclosing effect and it is considered that the fencing type proposed would have a fortress
like appearance to these neighbours.
The erection of this type of fencing would constitute a hostile appearance, and is
considered to be of a poor design. In design terms it is not considered that the
circumstances warrant accepting a less satisfactory fence type, and the location of the site,
part within and part adjacent to Ellesmere Park, that extra regard should be had to the
special character of the area and the need to protect it from proposals such as this.
I consider that the development is contrary to the requirements of the Adopted
Supplementary Planning Document relating to Ellesmere Park and Policies DES1 and
DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the proposed fence type would constitute a hostile feature and would
engender a fortress-like atmosphere contrary to the provisions of Policy DES10 of the
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Adopted Unitary Development Plan. The development would be out of place in the local
area and would compromise the special character of Ellesmere Park contrary to the
requirements of Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Adopted
Supplementary Planning Document relating to Ellesmere Park.
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. Standard Condition D05C Colour treatment, colour not known
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 22nd May 2007 which
shows amended fenceline and vertical railings.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. For the avoidance of doubt.
APPLICATION No:
07/54444/OUT
APPLICANT:
Countryside Properties UK Limited
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Fenney Street/Hilton Street/Upper
Camp Street And Great Clowes Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application (to include means of access)
for use of land for residential purposes (Site U)
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 0.73 hectare site within Lower Broughton. The site is bounded
by Fenney Street to the north, Great Clowes Street to the west and Upper Camp Street to
the south. The eastern boundary of the site comprises of Hilton Street and Lancashire
Motor Bodies, an accident repair specialist. The site has a slight gradient and as a
consequence there is a retaining wall along the site boundary with Great Clowes Street and
Upper Camp Street. Security fencing has been erected along the boundaries of the site and
the parts of the site, which are outside the security fencing, have been landscaped with
oriental planting.
The application site forms part of the Lower Broughton regeneration area, which
comprises approximately 74 hectares. The applicants, Countryside Properties, have formed
a development partnership with the Council and have developed an agreement, which
establishes a framework under which the redevelopment of the wider Lower Broughton
area will be planned, phased and implemented. Land to the south, on the west side of Great
Clowes Street, phase one of the redevelopment is under construction.
The application is for outline planning permission for residential development with all
matters except access reserved for subsequent consideration/approval. This application is
therefore considering the principle only. An indicative site layout plan and elevation of the
frontage have been submitted with the application. The application has also been
supported by a number of documents including Air Quality Impact Assessment, Noise
Assessment, Archaeological Desk Based Study, Transport Statement, Japanese Knotweed
Survey, Desk-Based Site Investigation and GEO-Environmental Assessment and Outline
Remedial Action Plan.
There is another application on the agenda for the adjacent land at the Junction of Great
Clowes Street and Camp Street. The application is for outline permission with all matters
except access reserved for subsequent consideration/approval.
SITE HISTORY
E14362 – Use of vacant land as a car storage compound, including erection of security
fencing and alteration to existing vehicular access– Approved 17th February 1983
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
E16944 – Construction of car compound and erection of boundary fencing together with
associated landscaping and alteration to existing and construction of new vehicular access
– Approved 18th July 1984
E24568 – Demolition of two houses and use of land for car storage together with erection
of security fencing – Approved 21st June 1989
E30043 – Erection of railings to act as additional security fencing - Approved 17th March
1993
CONSULTATIONS







Environment Agency – Recommend that any removal of Japanese knotweed
should be in accordance with 'Knotweed code of practice' guidance document
(EA, 2006).
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – recommends a number of
conditions relating to contamination, and noise mitigation measures.
Architectural Liaison Officer - has requested that a condition be attached to the
permission requiring that the developer meets Secure By Design standards on
this development.
United Utilities - No objection to the proposal
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – There is some potential archaeology
at this site relating to Romano-British settlement. It is intended to undertake
archaeological trial trenching in former garden areas to test for the presence of
archaeological remains. If significant remains are found then this is likely to
lead to a further stage of archaeological mitigation in the form of a detailed
excavation. Nick Finch of Scott Wilson has produced a Written Scheme of
Investigation for the archaeological evaluation which GMAU are satisfied with
the works which will last for two weeks on site commencing Tuesday 29th
May.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company –support the application
G M Passenger Transport Executive – no comments to make
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 6th April 2007
A press notice was published on the 12th April 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
16, 18, 20, 22 Upper Camp Street
Dover Inn, 15-17 Fenney Street
7, 9, 22, 24, 26, 28, 32 Pentlands Avenue
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
31, 33, 35 Hilton Street
BOHM, 271 –291 Bury New Road
208 - 210 Great Clowes Street
59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 Camponia Gardens
Lancashire Motor Bodies, Upper Camp Street
North Western Commericals, Upper Camp Street
Lancashire Motor Bodies, Hilton Street
REPRESENTATIONS
There has been one letter of objection in relation to this proposal. The objector recognises
that the site does need to be redeveloped. The objector considers that the erection of a
multi-story building would not be in the best interest of properties on Hilton Street as it
would have an unacceptable impact on privacy and would not complement the existing two
storey residential properties along Hilton Street.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other Policies: SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding
Areas
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: ST11 - Location of New Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Circulation and Movement
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 - Landscaping
DES10 – Design and Crime
DES11 – Design Statements
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H4 – Affordable Housing
H8 – Open Space Provision associated with New Housing
A2 - Cyclist, Pedestrian and the Disabled
A8 - Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments
R1 –Protection of Recreational Land and Facilities
CH2 – Development affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
CH5 – Archaeology and Ancient Monuments
E5 – Development within Established Employment Areas
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
The application site is within the area covered by the Lower Broughton Design Code
Adopted 18th January 2006 (SPD) which contains policies that will particularly inform the
development of detailed layouts and designs. These policies includeLBDC 1: Design statements
LBDC 2: Character of the area
LBDC 5: Archaeology
LBDC 11: Housing
Other Supplementary Planning Documents, which are of relevance to the determination of
this application, include Design Out Crime, Greenspace Strategy, Planning Obligations
and Supplementary Planning Housing Guidance.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the
proposed use is acceptable; whether the housing mix is acceptable; whether there would be
an impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents; whether there would be an impact on
the highway network or highway safety; whether there would be an appropriate
contribution towards public open space and affordable housing; and whether the proposal
would comply with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall
deal with each in turn below.
PRINCIPLE OF THE PROPOSAL
Policy SD1 of Regional Spatial Strategy states that priority should be given to investment
and development that will enhance the economic strength, complementarily of roles,
overall quality of life, environmental enhancement and social regeneration within the
regional poles and their surrounding inner areas.
Policy ST11 outlines the sequential approach to the bringing forward of land for
development and details the order in which sites for development should be brought
forward: existing buildings; previously developed land which is well served by a choice of
means of transport and is well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure;
previously developed land in other locations provided that adequate levels of accessibility
could be achieved; and finally greenfield sites in locations which are, or would be made to
be, well served by a choice of transport and well related to employment, services and
infrastructure.
Policy E5 of the Adopted Unitary Development states that within established employment
areas, planning permission will be granted for the reuse or redevelopment of sites within an
established employment area for non employment uses where the development would not
comprise the operating condition of other remaining employment uses and one or more of
the following apply:
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
a) the developer can clearly demonstrate that there is no current or likely future
demand for the site or building for employment purposes
b) there is a strong environmental case for rationalizing land uses or creating open
space
c) the development would contribute to the implementation of an approved
regeneration strategy or plan for the area; or
d) the site is allocated for another use in the UDP
The site, although not formally allocated as a specific employment site within the UDP is
considered to form part of a wider established employment area that extends towards Bury
New Road. As such the application should be assessed against Policy E5 which seeks to
protect such areas. The applicants have submitted a supporting text in the Planning
Statement. The text submitted is supported by the Strategic Director of Environment
Services and adequately addresses the first criterion of policy E5 and suggests that the
siting of development would not compromise surrounding employment uses. The
supporting text further states that the proposal would also meet criterion c, of the list, as the
development would contribute to the implementation of an approved regeneration strategy.
The application site is located within the area covered by the Lower Broughton Design
Code. The regeneration strategy for Lower Broughton covers a 74 hectare site and will
provide housing, open space, local amenities in order to support a sustainable community.
A conscious decision was taken to include this site within the development area and this
can be explained by its location at a prominent road junction. It is considered that the
development of this site would make an important contribution to the enhancement of
Lower Broughton in accordance with the SPD.
I consider that the proposal would contribute to the implementation of the Lower
Broughton Design Code and regeneration of Lower Broughton. The proposal would
comply with Policy E5 and therefore the principal of the development is considered
acceptable.
HOUSING MIX
Policy H1 states that new housing development should, inter alia, contribute to the
provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area and be built at an appropriate
density of not less than 30 dwellings per hectare. In determining whether the proposed mix
and density of dwellings is acceptable, regard will be had to a number of factors, including
the size of the development, the physical characteristics of the site, the mix of dwellings in
the surrounding area, any special character of the surrounding area that is worthy of
protection, the accessibility of the site, the strategy and proposals of the Housing Market
Renewal Initiative, and any other relevant housing, planning or regeneration strategies
approved by the council.
Policy HOU1 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance expands on policy H1 and states
that within Central Salford new developments should provide a broad mix of dwelling
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
types and that apartments should only be the predominant form of provision on sites in the
most accessible locations. Alternative approaches on individual sites may be permitted
where it can be clearly demonstrated that there are specific circumstances that justify this
which have particular regard to criteria A-H of UDP Policy H1.
Policy LBDC 11 also states that residential development should contribute to the provision
of a balanced mix and range of property types within Lower Broughton that, among other
criteria, creates an attractive location, meets the needs of existing residents, provides
family housing of different sizes and underpins economic regeneration. Each character
area should incorporate a range of property types and tenures.
Policy HOU2 states requires a significant proportion of three bedroom apartments should
provided within a development, whilst paragraph 4.31 of the reasoned justification to this
policy states that the majority of apartments should be a minimum of 57sq/m.
The indicative layout plans show how the site could accommodate 107 units in three
apartment blocks, with a density of 147 dwellings per hectare. The applicants have
indicated that at least 50% of the units will have a floor area greater than 57sq/m in size.
The supporting documents state that the site would be developed entirely for apartments
and this could be justified in accessibility terms as the transport assessment suggests that
the site is ‘highly accessible, by public transport’. Whilst public transport accessibility
maybe a factor which could justify the higher proportion of apartments in the housing mix,
it is considered that, although served by a good bus route, the site is not adjacent to the
Metrolink or railway stations. Therefore 100% apartments provision is difficult to justify
purely in accessibility terms.
The applicants have provided further supportive text in order to justify the scheme for
100% apartments. They believe that apartments are required to the west of the site to fully
address the corner and this important junction into the redevelopment area. They believe
that this could not be achieved in the form of housing.
The east of the site is located adjacent to an established industrial use (Lancashire Motor
Bodies). Technical surveys have demonstrated that a satisfactory level of residential
amenity can be achieved in the form of apartments; the same would not be true of family
dwellings due to presence of private gardens. The restrictions of both design and
environmental considerations are felt to outweigh the need to provide a mix of housing.
Therefore a 100% apartments scheme is acceptable on this site.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Policy H4 states that where there is a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs the
developer will be required through negotiation to provide an element of affordable
housing.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Policy HOU3 states that 20% of the dwelling on residential sites over 1 hectare 25 units
should be in the form of affordable housing.
In this instance the applicants are proposing a commuted sum, rather than providing
affordable units on site. This has been agreed in principle following pre-application
discussions. However there have been discussions concerning the amount of commuted
sum. It is recommended that the formula should be derived using the formula.
Total commuted sum = 0.05 x total no of dwellings x average market price of dwelling.
Further discussions are to be held with colleagues in housing to establish the average
market price and how the money could be spent in the local area or how it could be used to
fund a shared equality scheme. I have therefore attached a condition, which will require the
applicants to submit a scheme in accordance with H4. I am therefore satisfied that the
application accords with the above policies.
DESIGN AND LAYOUT
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 maximise the
movement of pedestrians through and around sites and enable safe, direct and convenient
access to public transport facilities.
Policy LBDC 2 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 DES10 states that the Council will encourage the increased safety and security of
people and their property through the design of new developments. Issues raised regarding
the lack of defensible space on the Liverpool Road frontage received from the Greater
Manchester Police Authority can be dealt with at the reserved matters stage.
Policy DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal
takes account of the need for good design. A written statement should be submitted which
explains the design concepts and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, scale
and visual appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context and how the
proposal meets the Council’s design objectives and policies.
Policy LBDC1 states that for all major developments within the Lower Broughton Area
should be accompanied with a design statement which specifically identifies and address
design issues.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
In accordance with Policy DES11 and LBDC1, the applicant has submitted a design
statement which outlines the design principles of the development and provides an
explanation for the site’s layout and how this relates to the wider area. The support text
illustrates the how the proposed development of the site has evolved through
pre-application discussions.
Design and layout are not matters for consideration as part of this application as they are
reserved for future determination. The applicant has submitted indicative layout plans to
demonstrate how they can achieve a successful residential scheme on the site. I consider
that it is important to discuss them when assessing this application.
The indicative plans proposals illustrate three individual apartment blocks. The biggest
block would be on the junction of Upper Camp Street and Great Clowes Street and would
turn to address Fenney Street. The second block would front Upper Camp Street and the
third block would front Fenney Street. The proposed blocks would be a maximum of 13.5m
in height (5 stories) and a minimum of 10.8m (4 stories). The applicant has demonstrated
an indicative layout to show how the site could accommodate the level of development
proposed in a satisfactory manner. The applicant has stated that the precise ridges height
could only be established on confirmation of finished floor levels. As this may change due
as a result of the technical build the applicant has requested that the finished floor levels are
conditioned for later approval and must accompany any future approval of the reserved
matters.
An apartment scheme would not have a negative impact in terms of re establishing a
character for the area. The apartments on the corner would address this important junction.
The site consists of three entrances to parking across the site. In terms of Urban Design this
response should be welcomed as it is able to break up the parking courts that are a
by-product of apartment schemes. The smaller parking allows better security and an
increased sense of ownership amongst users. It is considered that a satisfactory disposition
and interrelationship to existing properties could be achieved. I have attached a condition
requiring the submission of separate design statements with applications for reserved
matters, which will be expected to accord with the requirements of the Lower Broughton
Design Code SPD. I am satisfied that this condition will ensure that the design statements
contain the relevant information, properly explain the rationale for the design and, most
importantly, ensure that the design is of a suitably high quality.
The indicative plans show that perimeter blocks have a close relationship to public realm
and create a high level of natural surveillance to both the public and private spaces which
would be in accordance with Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and
the principles contained within the Supplementary Planning Document: Design Out Crime.
The Architectural Liaison Officer has requested that a condition be attached to the
permission requiring that the developer to meet Secure By Design standards on this
development.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
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.
Adopted Policy DES9 states that landscaping should be of a high quality, reflect the
character of the area and the development, not detract from safety and security and form an
integral part of the development.
The plans that have been submitted are indicative. The blocks shown on the indicative
drawings would maintain suitable distances within the site and to existing properties to
ensure that the privacy is maintained and that the proposal would not have an overbearing
impact on neighbouring residents. The proposed elevation of the largest block, which is
located on Fenney Street would be 19m from the gable elevation of the listed building on
Great Clowes Street. The listed building is currently vacant but there are windows in the
elevation facing the application site. Therefore this distance is below the Council’s
separation standards. The applicant has noted that in any subsequent reserved matters
application the internal layout of these units could be reviewed in order that non-habitable
rooms windows would be in this elevation. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would
not have an unacceptable impact on future occupants on the listed building.
In light of the above, I do not consider that the proposed development would have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or future residents and that the
application therefore complies with Policy DES7.
Landscaping will form part of the reserve matters application. I am satisfied that this will
ensure that the landscaping meets the criteria of Adopted Policy DES9.
HERITAGE
Policy CH5 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would
have an unacceptable impact on an ancient monument, or site or feature of archaeological
importance or its setting.
LBDC5 states that developers will be required to record, protect and where appropriate
excavate archaeological features in accordance with national and local policies.
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.
208 and 210 Great Clowes Street are a Grade II listed buildings, designed to read as one.
They date from circa 1840. The building is raised up onto slightly higher ground above
road level. It is three stories with a pitched slate roof. The building currently enjoys a
highly prominent position being surrounded by derelict land. However the derelict land
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
itself distracts from the appearance and therefore does not provide an adequate setting for
such a building.
An analysis of the historic setting shows that the Listed Building was once surrounded by
developments with a similar footprint to those proposed. The site mirrors the historic form
of development. Obviously the scale of the proposed development and materials etc. are
reserved but will have an impact on the listed building and so the conservation officers for
Salford City Council will require further consultation as the plans develop. However the
indicative proposal does look reasonable and will successfully reintegrate the listed
building into the street scene.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit have identified that there is some potential
archaeology at this site relating to Romano-British settlement, as it lies between a 'camp' to
the east, shown on the OS 1st edition map, and Roman finds from parkland to the west. It is
intended to undertake archaeological trial trenching in former garden areas to test for the
presence of archaeological remains. If significant remains are found then this is likely to
lead to a further stage of archaeological mitigation in the form of a detailed excavation.
Nick Finch of Scott Wilson has produced a Written Scheme of Investigation for the
archaeological evaluation which GMAU are satisfied. I have attached a condition that no
development should commence on site until the applicant has secured the implementation
of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with the written investigation which
has been submitted to the local planning authority.
IMPACT ON THE HIGHWAY NETWORK AND HIGHWAY SAFETY
Policy A1 states that planning applications for developments which would give rise to
significant transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a
transport assessment and, where appropriate, a travel plan.
Policy A2 requires development proposals to make adequate provision for safe and
convenient access by the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists through the protection and
improvement of key routes.
Adopted Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled
drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
It also states that the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
The application seeks to approve the to the site. The application proposes three new
vehicular accesses to the site into three separate car parking areas. The proposed new
accesses would be off Upper Camp Street, Fenney Street and Hilton Street.
A Transport Assessment has been submitted with the application. This has concluded that
the proposed site is highly accessible and that the proposed development will not have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the highway network. Furthermore the means of
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
access into the site is considered to comply with the relevant standards and guidance for
residential development.
The indicative site plans show that there would be three car parking areas and providing
100 to 108 car parking spaces. In light of the Council’s maximum car parking standards
and the need to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, I am also of the
opinion that suitable provision can be made within the site for disabled drivers and cyclists.
A number of conditions and notes to applicant have been recommended, in order to ensure
that visibility splays are correct and the proposed new access will not have an unacceptable
impact on the highway safety. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would be in
accordance with A1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Air Quality and Noise
Policy EN17 states that development proposal that would be likely to cause or contribute
towards a significant increase in pollution to air or noise will not be permitted unless they
include mitigation measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development.
Both sites are located in the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for nitrogen dioxide.
Examination of the detail modelling for the area indicates levels to in the site are at 36
µg/m3 in 2005 falling to 31 µg/m3 in 2010 and therefore below that Air Quality objectives
set in the Air Quality Regulations.
The air quality has been predicted at number of locations (receptors) at the facades of both
plots that are likely to experience the largest changes or greatest exposure to pollution.
The approach used is suitable for the scale and type of development.
The results from this data are summarised below:
SW reports slight lower values for nitrogen dioxide and similar concentrations for
particulates when compared to modelling by Salford undertaken in 2003.
Annual mean levels of particulates and nitrogen dioxide will not exceed the Air
Quality Objectives in 2010
The development will not lead to any significant changes in AQ by the additional
traffic.
The Director of Environmental Services therefore has no objections to the planning
application on the grounds of air quality.
The noise report submitted with the application outlines various noise sources, including;
construction noise and vibration, road traffic noise and noise from Lancashire Motor
Bodies.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
The noise assessment has predicted and measured the likely Noise Exposure Category
(NEC) that the site lies within. None of the site lies within NEC D, which is where
development should not be allowed. The faēade of block B, facing Upper Camp Street, lies
within NEC C and the remainder of the site lies within NEC B and A. Noise mitigation
measures have been proposed in order to ensure that future occupants enjoy a satisfactory
level of amenity and I have included as a suggested condition.
The site is located adjacent to Lancashire Motor Bodies and in close proximity to an
extraction fan. The noise report refers to fan noise being audible at monitoring position M1,
which is closest to the extractor fan on the rear wall of Lancashire Motor Bodies. The
report does state that there are no tonal frequencies of concern. I have therefore
recommended those elevations overlooking this section of Lancashire Motor Bodies and
Manchester Auto Salvage, have upgraded sound insulation of the windows.
The report has concluded that estimates of noise levels during construction work do not
exceed LAeq(1hour) 70dB, however they show that there will be a moderate adverse impact
with mitigation measures. The Director of Environmental Services recommends on this
basis that a considerate contractor’s scheme should be considered for this site. The scale of
the developments in the area are significant and will be over a significant period of time.
The resilience of neighbouring sites against noise and disturbance will be reduced if
construction activities are not controlled from the outset. I therefore recommend a
considerate contractors scheme should be introduced, covering noise, dust, operating
hours, delivery times as a minimum.
The proposed new apartment blocks will need piling, however no details are provided of
the type of piling which is proposed. In terms of vibration impacts the likelihood of
building damage is negligible, however there is a moderate adverse impact of nuisance
from vibration. This area of work can also be conditioned to limit the impact on local
residents.
Contamination
Policy EN 16 states that development on sites known or thought to be contaminated will
require the submission of a site assessment as part of any planning application, identifying
the nature and extent of the contamination involved, the risk it poses to future
users/occupiers of the site, and the practical remedial measures proposed to deal with the
contamination. Planning permission for development on or near to contaminated land will
only be granted where the development would not, expose the occupiers of the
development and neighbouring land uses to unacceptable risk; threaten the structural
integrity of any existing or proposed building on or adjoining the site; lead to the
contamination of any watercourse, water body, or aquifer; or cause the contamination of
adjoining land or allow such contamination to continue.
Applicants submitted a Desk-Based Site Investigation and GEO-Environmental
Assessment and Outline Remedial Action Plan with the application. The contaminated
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
land report has been assessed by GMGU and has raised several areas where further
information is required and/or additional assessment is needed. It is therefore
recommended that the full contaminated land condition should be applied to the site, the
existing report submitted with the application will be accepted as part compliance with the
condition, however, the outstanding issues can be assessed as and when they are complete
and can be discharged as progress with compliance continues.
DEVELOPERS CONTRIBUTION
Policy H8 and Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document requires
developers to make an appropriate contribution to
The provision of open space
Improvements to the city’s public realm, heritage and infrastructure
The training of local residents in construction skills
The offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions
The contribution will apply to developments involving 10 dwelling or more. In this
proposal although number of dwellings have not be specified, the indicative plans show
107 units therefore it is reasonable to assume that development will be above the threshold.
The contributions are calculated on either numbers of dwellings or bedspaces. As the
number of dwellings or bed spaces created as a result of the proposal is not known at this
stage, as only indicative plans have been submitted, it is not possible to calculate the level
of contribution. I have therefore attached a condition, which will require the applicants to
provide a scheme in accordance with the Planning Obligations SPD. I am therefore
satisfied that the application accords with the above policies.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential
purpose is acceptable and the indicative layouts produced clearly demonstrate that the
number of apartments can be achieved on site. 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
1. Standard Condition B01B reserved matters time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
a) appearance, including details of the aspects of a building or place within the
development which determine the visual impression the building or place makes,
including the external built form of the development, its architecture, material,
decoration, lighting, colour and texture;
b) landscaping, including details of the treatment of land (other than buildings) for the
purpose of enhancing or protecting the amenities of the site and the area in which it is
situated and includes screening by fences, walls or other means, the planting of trees,
hedges, shrubs or grass, the formation of banks, terraces or other earthworks, the laying
out or provisions of gardens, courts or squares, water features, sculpture, or public art,
and the provision of other amenity features;
c) layout, including details of the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces
within the development are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other
and to buildings and spaces outside the development;
d) scale, including details of the height, width and length of each building proposed
within the development in relation to its surroundings.
3. 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.
4. Upon approval of the landscaping details, pursuant to Condition 2 of this permission,
the new planting shall be carried out during the planting season October/March
inclusive, (in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation,
staking etc in BS4428:1989 (1979)) immediately following commencement of the
development. Any plants found damaged, dead or dying in the first five years are to be
duly replaced and the scheme thereafter retained.
5. Any application for the approval of reserved matters for the development hereby
approved shall be accompanied by a design statement, which shall be approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the
development. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved
statement.
6. No part of the development shall be first occupied unless and until its associated car,
cycle and motorcycle parking provision has been completed and made available for
use. Such disabled, cycle and motorcycle spaces shall be retained and kept available for
use thereafter.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
7. 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. Such approved bin stores shall thereafter be constructed and made
available for use before the development is brought into use.
8. Any application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by details of
the provision of recycling facilities. Such details shall be approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Such provision
shall be made available prior to the first occupation.
9. Any application for the approval of reserved matters for the development hereby
approved shall be accompanied with details of the existing and proposed floor levels
for the development, which shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The scheme shall be
constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details.
10. Any application for the approval of reserved matters for the development hereby
approved shall be accompanied by secure by design scheme, which shall be approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall be capable of being
accredited by Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit under the secure
by design scheme. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the first
occupation of any dwelling and retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
11. Prior to the commencement of development details of carriageway markings at all the
car park entrances / exits and externally illuminated highway signing (Camp Street
access) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The approved markings and signing shall be implemented in full prior to first
occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved.
12. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall:
a) submit a site investigation report for the approval of the LPA. The investigation
shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground
gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors
as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily
on risks to human health and the wider environment; and
b) Where necessary, submit a site investigation report to assess the risks to controlled
waters for the approval of the LPA and in consultation with the Environment Agency.
This report should also address points c.), d.) and e.) stated below and must be agreed in
consultation with The Environment Agency.
c) The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start
of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation
of the site.
d) If, during any works on site, contamination is suspected or found, or contamination
is caused, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified immediately. Where required,
a suitable risk assessment shall be carried out and/or any remedial action shall be
carried out in accordance to an agreed process and within agreed timescales in
agreement with the Local Planning Authority.
e) A Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for
approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site
were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
13. Prior to the commencement of development a close boarded solid wooden fence with a
minimum surface density of 15 kg/m2 2-3m height to be erected along the North West
boundary of the site it shall be retained as such for the duration of the construction
activities.
14. No piling shall be permitted on site until a scheme indicating how the amenity of
neighbouring residential properties will be protected against the effects of noise and
vibration has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Mitigation measures shall be clearly identified and once approved, shall be
implemented throughout all piling operations.
15. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a ventilation scheme
to minimise the need to open windows for ventilation purposes on facades identified as
PPG 24 Category C shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall indicate alternative ventilation measures to
minimise the impact of the amenity of future occupiers through road traffic noise.
Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all approved
ventilation measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation.
16. Prior to first occupation glazing shall be installed on facades in accordance with the
Scott Wilson Report reference Lower Broughton Redevelopment Noise Assessment Site U, Planning Application, dated February 2007 and shall be implemented prior to
first occupation and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved details.
17. 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
that shall include of details noise, dust, route that will be taken by construction traffic
and no development or activities related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site
in contravention of such site operating statement.
18. No development shall take place within the proposal area until the applicant has
secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance the
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Archaeological Desk Based Study, March 2007 which has been submitted by the
applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
19. No development approved by this permission shall commence unless a scheme to
provide off-site Affordable Housing in lieu of it being provided on site to accord with
the terms of Policy H4 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and a scheme in
accordance with the requirements of the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning
Document are submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Reason: To ensure that future applications accord with the provisions of policies
DES13 and DES9 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and policy 1 of the Salford
City Council Supplementary Planning Document, Lower Broughton Design Code.
6. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage
7. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
8. In accordance with Policy EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
9. To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding in accordance
with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
10. To ensure the design of the scheme discourages crime in accordance with Policy
DES10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
12. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
13. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
14. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
15. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
16. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
17. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
18. Reason: In order to protect features of archaeological importance, in accordance with
Policy CH5 of the Unitary Development Plan.
19. Reason: In order to ensure adequate affordable housing provision and financial
contributions, in accordance with Policies H4 of the Unitary Development Plan and
the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The drawing GM-139-PL01 is indicative and this permission does not relate to them
and does not imply permission would be forthcoming.
2. Any Japanese Knotweed eradication refers to the newly amended 'Knotweed code of
practice' guidance document (EA, 2006) which can be found on our website
(www.environment-agency.gov.uk)
3. All existing vehicular accesses to the site which are not required for the new
development are to be made up to footways to the agreed Highway Authority
Specification.
Sightline splays of 4.5m x 70m are to be provided at the new vehicular access points
onto Upper Camp Street and Fenny Street.
Minimum sightline splays of 2.4 x 70 m is to be provided at the new car park access to
Hilton Street.
The first two car parking spaces nearest to the access off Hilton Street are to be
removed as they are encroaching onto the radii.
Minimum access widths of 4.5 metres and 6.0 metre radii are to be provided at all the
car park entrances / exits.
Sightline splay to the left of 4.5 x 90m to be provided at the Fenny Street / Great
Clowes Street junction.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54445/OUT
APPLICANT:
Countryside Properties UK Limited
LOCATION:
Land At The Junction Of Great Clowes Street And Camp
Street Lower Broughton Salford
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application (including means of access)
for use of land for residential purposes (Site T)
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 0.22 hectare site within Lower Broughton. The site is bounded
by Camp Street to the south, Great Clowes Street to the east, a Public Right of Way to the
west and Back Camp Street to the north. Albert Park is situated beyond Back Camp Street,
which is a designated as a proposed district park. To the west beyond the PROW are
residential properties Camponia Gardens. The site is currently vacant and in a poor
condition. There is a billboard on the eastern boundary, which can be viewed along Great
Clowes Street when travelling from the north.
The application site forms part of the Lower Broughton regeneration area, which
comprises approximately 74 hectares. The applicants, Countryside Properties, have formed
a development partnership with the council and have developed an agreement, which
establishes a framework under which the redevelopment of the wider Lower Broughton
area will be planned, phased and implemented. Land to the south, on the west side of Great
Clowes Street, phase one of the redevelopment is under construction.
The application is for outline planning permission for residential development with all
matters except access reserved for subsequent consideration/approval. This application is
therefore considering the principle only. An indicative site layout plan and elevation of the
frontage have been submitted with the application to illustrate that 29 units can be
accommodated within the site. The application includes a number of supporting
documents including Air Quality Impact Assessment, Noise Assessment, Archaeological
Desk Based Study, Transport Statement, Japanese Knotweed Survey, Desk-Based Site
Investigation and GEO-Environmental Assessment and Outline Remedial Action Plan.
There is another application on the agenda for the adjacent land bounded by Fenney
Street/Hilton Street/Upper Camp Street and Great Clowes Street. The application is for
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
outline permission with
consideration/approval.
all
matters
except
access
reserved for subsequent
SITE HISTORY
E5664 – Erection of porch and internal alterations to provide function room – Approved
15th February 1978
E11168 - Rebuilding of front porch, change of use of ground floor of residential hotel to
public bar and restaurant and provision of new residential bar in basement and laying out of
car park – Approved 19th August 1981
E16656 – Erection of new public house with managers living accommodation, together
with associated landscaping, car parking and construction of vehicular and pedestrian
accesses – Refused 21st March 1984
E19619 – Erection of eight houses and two bungalows together with associated
landscaping, car parking and construction of a new vehicular access – Approved 16th April
1986
E26339 – Outline permission for the erection of eight houses and two bungalows Approved 19th September 1990
96/35961/OUT – Outline permission for the erection of a residential development –
Approved 16th April 1997
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency - Recommend that any removal of Japanese knotweed should
be in accordance with 'Knotweed code of practice' guidance document (EA, 2006).
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – recommend a number of conditions
Architectural Liaison Officer - has requested that a condition be attached to the
permission requiring that the developer to meet Secure By Design standards on this
development.
United Utilities – no objection to the proposal
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – no more archaeological work is
recommended
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company– support the application
G M Passenger Transport Executive - no comments to make
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
208 - 210 Great Clowes Street
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 Camponia Gardens
REPRESENTATIONS
No responses have been received in response to this application.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other Policies: SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding
Areas
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: ST11 - Location of New Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Circulation and Movement
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 - Landscaping
DES10 – Design and Crime
DES11 – Design Statements
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H4 – Affordable Housing
H8 – Open Space Provision associated with New Housing
A2 - Cyclist, Pedestrian and the Disabled
A8 - Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments
R1 –Protection of Recreational Land and Facilities
CH5 – Archaeology and Ancient Monuments
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT
The application site is within the boundary of The Salford City Council Supplementary
Planning Document, Lower Broughton Design Code Adopted 18th January 2006 (SPD)
provides contains policies that will particularly inform the development of detailed layouts
and designs:
LBDC 1: Design statements
LBDC 2: Character of the area
LBDC 5: Archaeology
LBDC 11: Housing
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Other Supplementary Planning Documents, which are of relevance to the determination of
this application, include Design Out Crime, Greenspace Strategy, Planning Obligations
and Supplementary Planning Housing Guidance.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the
proposed use is acceptable; whether the housing mix is acceptable and the contribution to
affordable housing; whether there would be an impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents; whether there would be an impact on the highway network or highway safety;
whether there would be an appropriate contribution towards public open space; and
whether the proposal would comply with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan. I shall deal with each in turn below.
PRINCIPLE OF THE PROPOSAL
Policy SD1 of Regional Spatial Strategy states that priority should be given to investment
and development that will enhance the economic strength, complementarily of roles,
overall quality of life, environmental enhancement and social regeneration within the
regional poles and their surrounding inner areas.
Policy ST11 outlines the sequential approach to the bringing forward of land for
development and details the order in which sites for development should be brought
forward: existing buildings; previously developed land which is well served by a choice of
means of transport and is well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure;
previously developed land in other locations provided that adequate levels of accessibility
could be achieved; and finally greenfield sites in locations which are, or would be made to
be, well served by a choice of transport and well related to employment, services and
infrastructure.
Policy R1 states that the development of existing recreation land or facilities for residential
use will not be permitted unless; the development is for formal or informal recreational
purposes that would contribute to the continued recreation use of the site or it can be clearly
demonstrated that the site is surplus to recreational requirements or the development is
ancillary to principal use of the site.
The site is identified in the Greenspace Strategy (SPD) as a ‘greenspace’ site and is
considered to have some recreational use. Therefore the principles in policy R1 must be
applied to demonstrate that the site is surplus to recreation requirements. The existing
condition of the site is poor albeit that PPG17, Sport and Recreation, confirms that the
condition of a site should not lead to the assumption that it is surplus to recreation
requirements. The site is located adjacent to Albert Park – an existing LEAP, NEAP,
neighbourhood park and proposed district park and local semi-natural greenspace. The site
is also located within the catchment of Kersal Dale an existing semi-natural greenspace.
Currently Broughton and Blackfriars only meet 20-29% of the NPFA standard for Youth
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
and Adult Facilities. However it is expected that most of these facilities would be located
within existing recreational sites.
It can be concluded therefore that this site is not required to meet any of the above
standards set by the Greenspace SPD. The site currently has limited recreational value and
at most provides an informal footpath link across the site. Therefore it is considered that the
development of this site would not have an unacceptable impact on the recreational
requirements across the city.
The site is located on Great Clowes Street, which is in Central Salford and has good public
transport links via buses into Manchester City Centre. The area is subject to a joint venture
regeneration project therefore the site would be well relates to housing, employment,
services and infrastructure. Thus development of this site would be located within a
sustainable location in accordance with policy ST11 of the Adopted Unitary Development
Plan. The proposal would also conform to the Lower Broughton Design Code
Supplementary Planning Document which identifies this major junction as a gateway into
the area. I therefore consider the development of this site to have a positive impact on the
surrounding area and would support the overall aim of the regeneration project.
It is concluded that the principle of developing this site is acceptable and would be in
accordance with policies ST11 and R1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan, the
Greenspace Strategy SPD and the Lower Broughton Design Code.
HOUSING MIX
Policy H1 states that new housing development should, inter alia, contribute to the
provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area and be built at an appropriate
density of not less than 30 dwellings per hectare. In determining whether the proposed mix
and density of dwellings is acceptable, regard will be had to a number of factors, including
the size of the development, the physical characteristics of the site, the mix of dwellings in
the surrounding area, any special character of the surrounding area that is worthy of
protection, the accessibility of the site, the strategy and proposals of the Housing Market
Renewal Initiative, and any other relevant housing, planning or regeneration strategies
approved by the council.
Policy HOU1 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance expands on policy H1 and states
that within Central Salford new developments should provide a broad mix of dwelling
types and that apartments should only be the predominant form of provision on sites in the
most accessible locations. Alternative approaches on individual sites may be permitted
where it can be clearly demonstrated that there are specific circumstances that justify this,
which have particular regard to criteria A-H of UDP Policy H1.
Policy LBDC 11 also states that residential development should contribute to the provision
of a balanced mix and range of property types within Lower Broughton that, among other
criteria, creates an attractive location, meets the needs of existing residents, provides
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
family housing of different sizes and underpins economic regeneration. Each character
area should incorporate a range of property types and tenures.
Policy HOU2 states requires a significant proportion of three bedroom apartments should
provided within a development, whilst paragraph 4.31 of the reasoned justification to this
policy states that the majority of apartments should be a minimum of 57sq/m.
The indicative layout plans show how the site could accommodate 29 units in a single
block, with a density of 127 dwellings per hectare. The applicants have indicated that at
least 50% of the units will have a floor area greater than 57sq/m in size. There is a
presumption in the supporting documents that the site would be developed entirely for
apartments and this could be justified in accessibility terms as the transport assessment
suggests that the site is ‘highly accessible by public transport’.
Whilst public transport accessibility maybe a factor which could justify the higher
proportion of apartments in the housing mix, I consider due to the location of application
site that it is difficult to justify this in purely accessibility terms as the reasoned justification
of the Housing Planning Guidance Section 4.14 specifically states that highly accessible
sites are those close to Metrolink or train stations. This application site would not meet this
criterion.
However the proposal for apartments in this location whilst departing from the general
approach of policy HOU1 can be justified in design terms having regard to the Lower
Broughton Design Code. The site is located in a prominent location at an important road
junction. It is therefore considered that the design requirements, which enable a
development to fully address the junction, outweighs the need to provide a mix of housing.
Therefore a 100% apartments scheme is acceptable on this site.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Policy H4 states that where there is a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs the
developer will be required through negotiation to provide an element of affordable
housing.
Policy HOU3 states that 20% of the dwelling on residential sites over 1 hectare or 25 units
should be in the form of affordable housing.
In this instance the applicants are proposing a commuted sum, rather than providing
affordable units on site. This has been agreed in principle following pre-application
discussions. However there have been discussions concerning the amount of commuted
sum. It is recommended that the formula should be derived using the formula
Total commuted sum = 0.05 x total no of dwellings x average market price of dwelling.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Further discussions are to be held with colleagues in housing to establish the average
market price and how the money could be spent in the local area or how it could be used to
fund a shared equality scheme. I have therefore attached a condition, which will require the
applicants to submit a scheme in accordance with H4. I am therefore satisfied that the
application accords with the above policies.
DESIGN AND LAYOUT
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 maximise the
movement of pedestrians through and around sites and enable safe, direct and convenient
access to public transport facilities.
Policy LBDC 2 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 DES10 states the Councils encouragement of increased safety and security of
people and their property through the design of new developments.
Policy DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal
takes account of the need for good design. A written statement should accompany an
appliaction 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 LBDC1 states that for all major developments within the Lower Broughton Area
should be accompanied with a design statement which specifically identifies and address
design issues.
In accordance with Policy DES11, LBDC1 and LBDC2, the applicant has submitted a
design statement which outlines the design principles of the development and provides an
explanation for the site’s layout and how this relates to the wider area. The supporting text
illustrates the how the proposed development of the site has evolved through pre
application discussions.
Design and layout are not matters for consideration as part of this application as they are
reserved for future determination. The applicant has submitted indicative layout plans to
demonstrate how they can achieve a successful residential scheme on the site. I consider
that it is important to discuss them when assessing this application.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
The indicative plans illustrate a ‘U’ shaped building which fronts Camp Street and Great
Clowes Street and the northern elevation would turn to provide an active frontage to Albert
Park. Car parking and amenity space would be located to the rear of the proposed block.
The proposed block would be a maximum of 13.5m in height (5 stories) and a minimum of
10.8m (4 stories). The applicant has demonstrated an indicative layout to show how the site
could accommodate the level of development proposed in a satisfactory manner. The
applicant has stated that the precise ridges height could only be established on confirmation
of finished floor levels. As this may change due as a result of the technical build the
applicant has requested that the finished floor levels are conditioned for later approval and
must accompany any future approval of the reserved matters.
The application is in outline form and so there are no design details yet to consider. The
proposal’s siting fronting the corner is completely acceptable for the area. There is no
reason to believe that a scheme cannot be devised that would not be detrimental to the form
and character of the area. It is considered that a satisfactory disposition and
interrelationship to existing properties could be achieved. I have attached a condition
requiring the submission of separate design statement with the application for reserved
matters, which will be expected to accord with the requirements of the Lower Broughton
Design Code SPD. I am satisfied that this condition will ensure that the design statements
contain the relevant information, to properly explain the rationale for the design and, most
importantly, ensure that the design is of a suitably high quality.
The indicative plans show that the perimeter block clearly differentiates between public
and private spaces. The private space within the site would be secured by a gated access.
The design would create a high level of natural surveillance to both the public and private
spaces which would be in accordance with Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan and the principles within the Supplementary Planning Document:
Design Out Crime. The Architectural Liaison Officer has requested that a condition be
attached to the permission requiring that the developer to meet Secure By Design standards
on this development.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of
the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
Adopted Policy DES9 states that landscaping should be of a high quality, reflect the
character of the area and the development, not detract from safety and security and form an
integral part of the development.
At this stage there are no details of the development. The plans that have been submitted
are indicative. The rear elevation of the apartment block would be 37m from the rear
elevation of the properties on Camponia Gardens and the gable elevation of the block
would along Camp Street would be 19m and offset from 65 Camponia Gardens.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
In light of the above, I do not consider that the proposed development would have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or future residents and that the
application therefore complies with Policy DES7.
Landscaping will form part of the reserve matters application. I am satisfied that this will
ensure that the landscaping meets the criteria of Adopted Policy DES9.
HERITAGE
Policy CH5 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would
have an unacceptable impact on an ancient monument, or site or feature of archaeological
importance or its setting.
LBDC5 states that developers will be required to record, protect and where appropriate
excavate archaeological features in accordance with national and local policies.
The applicants has submitted an archaeological desk-based study with this application this
was conducted to assess the archaeological and historical significance of the site. The study
has indicated that there is low potential for archaeological remains to be encountered
within the area of the application site. The study concludes that no archaeological works
are recommended due to the low potential for archaeological remains occur. GMAU agree
that no further archaeological work is recommended.
IMPACT ON THE HIGHWAY NETWORK AND HIGHWAY SAFETY
Policy A1 requires planning applications for developments which would give rise to
significant transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a
transport assessment and, where appropriate, a travel plan.
Policy A2 requires development proposals to make adequate provision for safe and
convenient access by the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists through the protection and
improvement of key routes.
Adopted Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled
drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
It also states that the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
The application seeks to approve access as part of the application. The proposed new
vehicular access will be taken off Camp Street, which is close to the signalised junction of
Camp Street and Great Clowes Street
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
A Transport Assessment has been submitted with the application. This has concluded that
the proposed site is highly accessible and that the proposed development will not have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the highway network. Further more the means of
access into the site is considered to comply with the relevant standards and guidance for
residential development.
The indicative site plans show that there would be a total of 29 car parking spaces which
would be located to the rear of the building. In light of the Council’s maximum car parking
standards and the need to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport. I am
also of the opinion that suitable provision can be made within the site for disabled drivers
and cyclists.
A number of conditions and notes to applicant have been recommended, in order to ensure
that visibility splays are correct and the proposed new access will not have an unacceptable
impact on the highway safety. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would be in
accordance with A1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Air Quality and Noise
Policy EN17 states that development proposal that would be likely to cause or contribute
towards a significant increase in pollution to air or noise will not be permitted unless they
include mitigation measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development.
Both sites are located in the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for nitrogen dioxide.
Examination of the detail modelling for the area indicates levels to in the site are at 36
µg/m3 in 2005 falling to 31 µg/m3 in 2010 and therefore below that Air Quality objectives
set in the Air Quality Regulations.
The air quality has been predicted at number of location (receptors) at the facades of both
plots, which are likely to experience the largest changes or greatest exposure to pollution.
The approach used is suitable for the scale and type of development.
The results from this data are summarised below:
SW reports slight lower values for nitrogen dioxide and similar concentrations for
particulates when compared to modelling by Salford undertaken in 2003.
Annual mean levels of particulates and nitrogen dioxide will not exceed the Air
Quality Objectives in 2010
The development will not lead to any significant changes in AQ by the additional
traffic.
The Director of Environmental Services therefore has no objections to the planning
application on the grounds of air quality.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
The noise report outlines various noise sources, including; construction noise and vibration
and road traffic noise.
The site has been categorised into PPG24 Categories B & C. The frontages onto the major
roads being Category C, the more shielded areas to the rear of the site being Category B.
The report further identifies glazing specifications for the specific PPG categories. This
level of protection will satisfy the requirements of BS8233:1999 providing that the
windows are closed. Background ventilation is targeted via the use of acoustic trickle vents
with a sound reduction index at least matching the glazing on each facade. The report
submitted by the applicant indicates that the preferred method of ventilation at night is
natural ventilation. It suggests that supplementary mechanical ventilation may be an option
if necessary utilising the existing kitchen and bathroom fans to boost night-time
ventilation. The Director of Environmental Services suggests that this is considered on the
noisiest facades of the building to provide a viable option to opening the windows. A
condition relating to this has been recommended.
The report also considers noise from construction activities on site. It proposes that
acoustic barriers and selection of silenced equipment along with considerate management
of the activities on site should minimise the impact. The Director of Environmental
Services recommends on this basis that a considerate contractor’s scheme should be
considered for this site. The scale of the developments in the area are significant and will be
over a significant period of time. The resilience of neighbouring sites against noise and
disturbance will be reduced if construction activities are not controlled from the outset. I
therefore recommend a considerate contractors scheme should be introduced, covering
noise, dust, operating hours, delivery times as a minimum.
The scheme also indicates piling of foundations may be necessary on site. The report
indicates that standard methods have been considered and assessed with a conclusion of
‘moderate adverse impacts’ are likely at certain properties at Camponia Gardens. Should
this be the case, it is recommended that alternative methods of piling be considered to
minimise the impact on the amenity of local residents.
Contamination
Policy EN 16 states that development on sites known or thought to be contaminated will
require the submission of a site assessment as part of any planning application, identifying
the nature and extent of the contamination involved, the risk it poses to future
users/occupiers of the site, and the practical remedial measures proposed to deal with the
contamination. Planning permission for development on or near to contaminated land will
only be granted where the development would not, expose the occupiers of the
development and neighbouring land uses to unacceptable risk; threaten the structural
integrity of any existing or proposed building on or adjoining the site; lead to the
contamination of any watercourse, water body, or aquifer; or cause the contamination of
adjoining land or allow such contamination to continue.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Applicants submitted a Desk-Based Site Investigation and GEO-Environmental
Assessment and Outline Remedial Action Plan with the application. The contaminated
land report has been assessed by GMGU and has raised several areas where further
information is required and/or additional assessment is needed. It is therefore
recommended that the full contaminated land condition should be applied to the site, the
existing report submitted with the application will be accepted as part compliance with the
condition, however, the outstanding issues can be assessed as and when they are complete
and can be discharged as progress with compliance continues.
DEVELOPERS CONTRIBUTION
Policy H8 and Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document requires
developers to make an appropriate contribution to
1. The provision of open space
2. Improvements to the city’s public realm, heritage and infrastructure
3. The training of local residents in construction skills
4. The offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions
The contribution will apply to developments involving 10 dwelling or more. In this
proposal although number of dwellings have not be specified, the indicative plans show 29
units therefore it is reasonable to assume that development will be above the threshold.
The contributions are calculated on either numbers of dwellings or bedspaces. As the
number of dwellings or bed spaces created as a result of the proposal is not known at this
stage, as only indicative plans have been submitted, it is not possible to calculate the level
of contribution. I have therefore attached a condition, which will require the applicants to
provide a scheme in accordance with the Planning Obligations SPD. I am therefore
satisfied that the application accords with the above policies.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential
purpose is acceptable and the indicative layouts produced clearly demonstrate that the
number of apartments can be achieved on site. 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
1. Standard Condition B01B reserved matters time limit
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have
been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
a) appearance, including details of the aspects of a building or place within the
development which determine the visual impression the building or place makes,
including the external built form of the development, its architecture, material,
decoration, lighting, colour and texture;
b) landscaping, including details of the treatment of land (other than buildings) for the
purpose of enhancing or protecting the amenities of the site and the area in which it is
situated and includes screening by fences, walls or other means, the planting of trees,
hedges, shrubs or grass, the formation of banks, terraces or other earthworks, the laying
out or provisions of gardens, courts or squares, water features, sculpture, or public art,
and the provision of other amenity features;
c) layout, including details of the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces
within the development are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other
and to buildings and spaces outside the development;
d) scale, including details of the height, width and length of each building proposed
within the development in relation to its surroundings.
3. 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.
4. Upon approval of the landscaping details, pursuant to Condition 2 of this permission,
the new planting shall be carried out during the planting season October/March
inclusive, (in accordance with the appropriate British Standards for ground preparation,
staking etc in BS4428:1989 (1979)) immediately following commencement of the
development. Any plants found damaged, dead or dying in the first five years are to be
duly replaced and the scheme thereafter retained.
5. Any application for the approval of reserved matters for the development hereby
approved shall be accompanied by a design statement, which shall be approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the
development. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved
statement.
6. No part of the development shall be first occupied unless and until its associated car,
cycle and motorcycle parking provision has been completed and made available for
use. Such disabled, cycle and motorcycle spaces shall be retained and kept available for
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
use thereafter.
7. 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. Such approved bin stores shall thereafter be constructed and made
available for use before the development is brought into use.
8. Any application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by details of
the provision of recycling facilities. Such details shall be approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Such provision
shall be made available prior to the first occupation.
9. Any application for the approval of reserved matters for the development hereby
approved shall be accompanied with details of the existing and proposed floor levels
for the development, which shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The scheme shall be
constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details.
10. Any application for the approval of reserved matters for the development hereby
approved shall be accompanied by secure by design scheme, which shall be approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall be capable of being
accredited by Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit under the secure
by design scheme. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the first
occupation of any dwelling and retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
11. Prior to the commencement of development details of the carriageway marking are to
be amended on the approach to the traffic signal lights on Camp Street and in front of
the new access to the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The approved markings and signing shall be implemented in
full prior to first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved.
12. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall:
a) submit a site investigation report for the approval of the LPA. The investigation
shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground
gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors
as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily
on risks to human health and the wider environment; and
b) Where necessary, submit a site investigation report to assess the risks to controlled
waters for the approval of the LPA and in consultation with the Environment Agency.
This report should also address points c.), d.) and e.) stated below and must be agreed in
consultation with The Environment Agency.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
c) The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start
of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained
within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation
of the site.
d) If, during any works on site, contamination is suspected or found, or contamination
is caused, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified immediately. Where required,
a suitable risk assessment shall be carried out and/or any remedial action shall be
carried out in accordance to an agreed process and within agreed timescales in
agreement with the Local Planning Authority.
e) A Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for
approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site
were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
13. 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
that shall include of details noise, dust, route that will be taken by construction traffic
and no development or activities related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site
in contravention of such site operating statement.
14. No piling shall be permitted on site until a scheme indicating how the amenity of
neighbouring residential properties will be protected against the effects of noise and
vibration has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Mitigation measures shall be clearly identified and once approved, shall be
implemented throughout all piling operations.
15. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a ventilation scheme
to minimise the need to open windows for ventilation purposes on facades identified as
PPG 24 Category C shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall indicate alternative ventilation measures to
minimise the impact of the amenity of future occupiers through road traffic noise.
Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all approved
ventilation measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation.
16. Prior to first occupation glazing shall be installed on facades in accordance with the
Scott Wilson Report reference Lower Broughton Redevelopment Noise Assessment Site T, Planning Application, dated February 2007 and shall be implemented prior to
first occupation and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved details.
17. No development approved by this permission shall commence unless a scheme to
provide off-site Affordable Housing in lieu of it being provided on site to accord with
the terms of Policy H4 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and a scheme in
accordance with the requirements of the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning
Document are submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Reason: To ensure that future applications accord with the provisions of policies DES1
of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and policy 1 of the Salford City Council
Supplementary Planning Document, Lower Broughton Design Code.
6. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage
7. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
7. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
8. In accordance with Policy EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
9. To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding in accordance
with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
10. In the interest of design and crime in accordance with Policy DES10 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
12. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
13. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
14. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
15. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
16. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
17. Reason: In order to ensure adequate affordable housing provision and financial
contributions, in accordance with Policies H4 of the Unitary Development Plan and
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The drawing GM-138-PL01 is indicative and this permission does not relate to them
and does not imply permission would be forthcoming.
2. Any Japanese Knotweed eradication refers to the newly amended 'Knotweed code of
practice' guidance document (EA, 2006) which can be found on our website
(www.environment-agency.gov.uk)
3. All existing vehicular accesses to the site which are not required for the new
development are to be made up to footways to the agreed Highway Authority
Specification.
Sightline splays at the new access are to be a minimum of 4.5 x 70m.
APPLICATION No:
07/54512/OUT
APPLICANT:
Innfield Ltd
LOCATION:
Buildings On Gardner Street, Formally 2 Police Street
And Adjacent Former Bank At 83 Broad Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application (to include layout, scale,
external appearance and access) for the erection of a part
12/part 10 storey building comprising of basement
carparking, 169 sq metres of retail use and 127 units of
student accomodation.
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site bounded by Gardner Street to the north and beyond that a
carparking area for Pendleton House, 2 storey residential properties to the east, Broad
Street and beyond that the A6 to the south and a carpark serving Pendleton House to the
west. Two buildings exist on the site at present, a 3 storey red brick building on the
northern part of the site and a 2 storey flat roof building on the southern part of the site. The
red brick building was previously owned and used by Salford City Council as office
accommodation and the 2 storey element was previously a bank.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
The application seeks outline-planning consent for the layout, scale, external appearance
and access of a part 12/ part 10 storey building, to include basement carparking with 7
spaces, 169 sq m of retail use and 127 units of student accommodation, of which 9 would
be specifically designed for disabled students. The proposed building is roughly
rectangular in shape with the 12 storey element facing Broad Street and the 10 storey
element facing Gardner Street.
SITE HISTORY
None relevant
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Concerns regarding the sites location within an
AQMA poor internal ventilation and lack of a noise survey.
Manchester Airport – no comments received to date
Salford Urban Regeneration Company – Support the principle of developing high quality
accommodation, but do not consider the site to be an appropriate location for a
development of this scale or nature. Specific concerns are related to the lack of amenity
space around the building, the impact on the residential properties and St Thomas’s Church
and the amenity of future users.
United Utilities – Initially an objection regarding the building over main sewers, however
this has since been resolved.
New Deal for Communities Charlestown and Kersal – No comments received to date
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments received to date
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 24th April 2007 and 25th May 2007
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 19th April 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1-34 Gardner Street
66-72 Broad Street
1-11 Higham View
Pendleton House
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Church of St Thomas
The Unicorn, 10 Broughton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 petitions and 11 individual letters in relation of the site. The first of the
petitions contained 106 signatures and came via Hazel Blears MP, the second petition
contained a further 30 signatures. Although objecting to the application no specific reasons
were given for objection. The grounds of objection for the 11 individual letters were as
follows:
















Land could be better used
Impact on the listed building
The accuracy of the submitted wind survey
Increase in noise
Increase in traffic
Lack of existing parking provision
Increase in crime
Loss of sunlight
Loss of privacy
Problems during construction
Lack of demand for student accommodation
Design of the building
TV reception interference
Opening hours of retail use
Lack of consultation with local residents
Restriction of disabled access to Pendleton house
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DP1: Economy in the use of land and building is required
DP3: Quality in New Development
EC8: Town Centres – Retail, Leisure and Office Development
UR4: Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
ER3: Built Heritage
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies ST1: Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST7: Mixed Use Development
ST8: Environmental Quality
ST11: Location of New Development
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
E5: Development within established employment areas
DEV6: Incremental Development
H7: Provision of Student Accommodation
ST9: Retail, Leisure, Social and Community Provision
S2: Retail and Leisure Development Outside Town Centres and
Neighbourhood Centres
ST14: Global Environment
EN16: Contaminated Land
EN17: Pollution Control
EN22: Resource Conservation
DES1: Respecting Context
DES2: Circulation and Movement
DES5: Tall Buildings
DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10: Design and Crime
EN23: Environmental Improvement Corridors
CH2: Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
CH8: Local List of Buildings, Structures and Features of Architectural,
Archaeological or Historic Interest
A1: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A2: Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
DEV5: Planning Obligations
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,
Planning Obligations SPD 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.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
It is considered that the main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of
redeveloping the land for student accommodation, the impact of the proposed development
on the street scene an the nearby listed buildings, the impact of the proposed development
on the amenity of the nearby residents, the design of the proposed building, the level of
parking provision for the proposed building and the accessibility of the site.
Principle
Policy UR4 of the RSS requires the redevelopment and re-use of vacant sites and buildings
within the urban areas to be a priority.
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Policy ST11 states that sites for development should be brought forward in the following
order, the reuse and conversion of existing buildings, previously-developed land in
locations that are well served by a choice of means of transport and well related to housing,
employment, services and infrastructure, previously developed land in other locations and
finally undeveloped land well served by a choice of means of transport.
It is considered that the proposed development falls within the second category of land that
is previously developed land in locations that are well served by public transport, it is
therefore considered that the redevelopment of this land is appropriate in principle.
Policy E5 states that planning permission will only be granted for the redevelopment of
sites within an established employment area where the development would not
compromise the operating conditions of other remaining employment uses and one the
developer can demonstrate that there is no current or likely future demand for the site, there
is a strong environmental case for rationalising the land, the development would contribute
to an approved regeneration strategy or plan for the area or the site is allocated for another
use within the UDP. Although the proposed development involves the loss of employment
land it is not considered that the site falls within the criteria of policy E5 as it is not in an
area with 5 or more adjacent business units, the site is less than 0.5ha and the existing
building is less than 5000sqm.
Policy DEV6 states that within or immediately adjacent to an area identified for major
development, planning permission will not be granted for incremental development that
would unacceptably hamper or reduce the development options for that wider area.
The application is situated within the Charlestown and Lower Kersal New Deal for
Communities area. Within the Area Development Framework (July 2004) the junction of
Broughton Road and the roundabout are identified as being a key gateway to the area. The
proposed development site is separated from this junction by a carpark currently used by
the staff at Pendleton House. Although I am not aware of any plans to redevelop this
carpark, it is considered that as the carpark is a key gateway site the proposed development
should not hamper or reduce future redevelopment options.
In order to minimise the impact that the proposed building would have on the
redevelopment of the carpark it is proposed to prevent direct outward looking from the
windows of the accommodation, instead views out of the window will be limited by
opaque glass situated within the second skin of the building, thus limiting any potential
impact for direct overlooking of the site. It is therefore considered that the redevelopment
of this site could be achieved without prejudicing the future redevelopment of the carpark
site.
Student Accommodation
Policy H7 relates to the provision of student accommodation and states that permission will
only be granted for the provision of student accommodation where the following criteria
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
are met: there is a proven need for development, the development is in a location with good
links to public transport, there would be no unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers of neighbouring developments, the use would not have an impact on the
character of the area; and the proposal is compatible with wider regeneration objectives
and is consistent with other policies of the UDP.
Policy HOU7 of the adopted Housing Planning Guidance expands further and states that
major applications for student housing should be accompanied by an assessment for the
need for student housing in the local area, and such assessment should identify the likely
level of demand for student housing over the next 10 years, the existing number and
location of student housing units, the sector of the student market at which the proposed
development is targeted, any potential ‘leakage’ of demand to student housing outside the
city, any impact on the local housing market and the adaptability of the proposed
development for other uses.
An objection has been received by a local resident in regards to the appropriateness of
student accommodation in the area and the need for student accommodation. Comments
received by the Urban Regeneration Company raise concerns regarding the nature and
scale of accommodation on the site. Concerns have also been raised regarding how this
development contributes to the vision of a ‘green’ campus and whether the location is
likely to be a vibrant location for students given its close location to a residential area.
The applicant has submitted the following information in support of policies H7 and
HOU7:
The large student population of Salford and Manchester is such that both
universities can only offer accommodation to first year students.
There are over 100,000 students within the universities of Salford, Manchester
Metropolitan University and Manchester University.
The applicants have stated that the amount of publicly available information relating to
extant planning permissions is limited. Of the extant permissions considered the following
conclusions were made:
 06/52770/FUL an application for the erection of a part four/ part five storey
building comprising of 379 student bedrooms on Peel Park Campus. The
applicant has stated that they are not aware whether this has been built as yet.
 05/51736/FUL an application for the conversion of the former BT telephone
exchange on Pendleton Way. The applicant has stated that since the decision
notice does not state the number of uses this application may not be of use.
 03/46609/FUL an application for the erection of 240 student units at Riverside
House. The applicant makes not comment on this application aside from the
fact that the application is located further from the universities than the
proposed development and there are less carparking spaces than the proposed
development.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Although it is acknowledged that it is difficult to obtain information relating to extant
permissions, it is considered that little research has been undertaken by the applicant to try
and understand the local student housing market and it is not considered sufficient to say
that there are more than 100,000 students within Greater Manchester.
Given the sites close proximity to the universities and its accessibility by public transport it
is considered that the principle of student accommodation in this area may be acceptable,
however insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate how the proposed 127
units would affect the student housing market in the area, or to demonstrate the need or
demand for such development in accordance with policies H7 and HOU7.
Retail
Policy ST9 states that the provision of retail facilities will be secured by protecting the
vitality and viability of existing town centres, adopting a sequential approach to the
location of new retail development and facilitating enhanced education, health and
community provision that meets local needs.
Policy S2 states that outside town and neighbourhood centres planning permission will be
granted for retail development where all of the following criteria are met; it can be
demonstrated that there is the need for development, it can be demonstrated that there are
no more appropriate sites for the development, there would be no unacceptable impact on
the vitality and viability of any town or neighbourhood centre, the site is accessible by
public transport, the development would give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic, the
development would be of an appropriate scale, the development would be of a high quality
of design and the development would not have an unacceptable impact on environmental
quality or residential amenity.
Although the retail element is located out of a town centre, it is intended to primarily serve
the student accommodation above and the local residential area. I am satisfied that the
proposed retail element would serve local needs and would not have an adverse impact on
the vitality or viability of Salford Shopping Precinct. Given that the proposed development
would primarily serve local needs I am satisfied that the retail element would not give rise
to an unacceptable level of traffic.
No details have been provided as to what type of retail use is proposed within the
development although the information provided indicates this is for an A1 use. The
proposed hours of use for the retail unit are 9-5 Monday-Saturday and 10-4 on Sundays. It
is considered that the proposed hours of use for the retail unit are acceptable.
Environment
Policy ST12 requires major development to minimise its impact on the global environment
by demonstrating how proposals will minimise greenhouse gas emissions.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Policy EN16 requires development proposals on sites known or thought to be contaminated
to require the submission of a site assessment as part of any planning application.
Policy EN17 requires development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute to
a significant increase in pollution will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by
appropriate mitigation measures.
Policy EN22 states that development proposals for more than 5000 sq m of floorspace to
only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the impact on the conservation of
non-renewable resources on the local and global environments has been minimised as far
as practicable and full consideration has been given to the use of realistic renewable energy
options, and such measures have been incorporated into the development where
practicable.
The design of the proposed building incorporates twin-face faēade designed to utilise solar
heat gain, increased daylight and moderation of temperature differences. It is considered
that if this application is approved a conditions be attached requesting full details of a
sustainability scheme for the site and building to be submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority together with details of recycling facilities.
Design
Policy DP3 of the RSS states that new development must demonstrate good design quality
and respect for its setting.
Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context,
respect the positive character of the local area and contribute towards local identity and
distinctiveness. It states that in assessing the extent to which the development complies
with this policy regard will be had to the impact to the existing landscape and any notable
features, the character, scale and pattern of streets, the relationship to existing buildings,
the impact on views and vistas, the scale of the proposed development, existing building
lines, the streets vertical and horizontal rhythms, the quality of materials and compatibility
with adjoining land uses.
Policy DES5 states that tall buildings will be permitted where the scale of development is
appropriate to its context and location, it is highly accessible by public transport, the
building would positively relate to the adjacent public realm, the building would be of a
high design quality, would make a positive contribution to the skyline, would not detract
from important views, there would be no unacceptable overshadowing or overlooking to
adjacent neighbouring occupiers, no unacceptable impact on the setting of a listed building,
and there would be no unacceptable impact on microclimate, telecommunications activity
or aviation safety.
Policy EN23 states that development along any of the Cities major road corridors will be
required to preserve or make a positive contribution to the corridors environment. In
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
determining the extent to which the development would achieve this regard will be had to
the quality of design and landscaping including elevation treatment and impact on views,
the extent to which the proposal would assist the implementation of corridor
implementation strategies, the impact on the public realm, the contribution towards air
quality improvement and accessibility, the impact on historic features and the extent to
which wildlife habitats are protected and improved.
In order to establish whether the design of the development is acceptable it is important to
consider the context of the site. The site is situated in an elevated position on the northern
side of the A6; on the southern side of this road the land drops away and gives rise to some
large residential tower blocks.
The northern side of the A6 is characterised by low rise residential buildings, punctuated
by larger historic buildings including St Thomas’s Church and the former Coop building
on Broughton Road. The northern part of the site is situated on an extended ridgeline,
which is particularly important when considering the effects of the development on the
setting of St Thomas’s Church and the former Co-op that are important landmarks in the
skyline.
The application is accompanied with a design statement, which outlines the principles of
how the proposed building has been designed to respond to its local context and its role as
a landmark building within Salford. The design statement identifies several nearby
building which it considers to be contextually relevant to the proposed development, these
include the university of Salford buildings that are 11 storeys in height, the student
accommodation on the corner of Fredrick Road and Seaford Road, the residential towers in
Pendleton, St James House a 9 storey building on the opposite side of the A6 and the
recently approved Ford Lane Scheme, located close to St Thomas Church.
Although the design statement has identified several tall buildings nearby the site, it has
failed to address or justify how the proposed building interacts with its immediate
surroundings, most notably the 2 storey residential dwellings on Gardner Street. It is
considered that the juxtaposition of the proposed building to the surrounding housing and
nearby Listed Buildings is not a positive response to the context of the area. PPS 1 states
that design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities
available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions should
not be accepted.
It is considered that the proposed building makes minimal attempt to fit into the context of
the site and its surroundings. The concept of the design is that the panes of glass to be used
within the building are to represent Alistair Cooke’s ‘Letters from America’ and has been
designed to echo the stained glass present in the windows of St Thomas’s Church.
The core principle behind By Design guidance to PPS 1 is to respect the character of an
area. Whilst using contrasting heights, styles and materials is an established technique for
creating viability and activity in an area it should not be used to the detriment of local
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
character and should especially not recreate previous mistakes where tower blocks appear
isolated and detached from an established area.
An important consideration for policy DES1 and DES5 is the impact of the proposed
development on established views and vistas. Currently within this area St Thomas’s
Church is clearly the dominant building on the skyline and can be seen for a wider area
around Pendleton and Charlestown. The proposed development would undoubtly dominate
the street scene when approaching from any of the nearby radial routes and would
significantly reduce the prominence of St Thomas’s Church and other nearby listed
buildings.
It is considered that the design and scale of the proposed buildings would have an
unacceptable impact on the visual amenity of the area and therefore is contrary to the aims
of policies DP3, DES1, DES5 and EN23.
The ground floor level of the proposed building is to be located 1.5m above ground level,
no details have been provided as to the treatment of this elevation at street level. It is
considered that the proposed retail unit would not provide an active frontage in the area and
therefore would not contribute to the street scene at street level.
Historic Environment
Policy ER3 of the RSS requires planning authorities to identify, protect, conserve and
where appropriate, enhance the built heritage of the region.
Policy CH2 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would
have an unacceptable impact on the setting of a listed building.
Policy CH8 states that the impact of a development of any building on the Council’s local
list will be a material planning consideration.
The listed buildings within the immediate vicinity of the site represent the historic link to
the former vibrant local community that was centred on the shops and commercial
properties that fronted Broad Street. The existing building is the former police station for
the area. The former Co-op buildings (Grade II listed) was one of the main providers of
foods and services as well as a important local employer, the former Maypole Public House
(Grade II listed) was built to complement the service provided by the two nearby railway
stations located on Broughton Road. The former Brunswick Wesleyan School and St
Thomas’s Church (both Grade II listed) were the local educational and religious centres of
the community. As well as their listed status these buildings are still very important to the
local community and therefore new development in the area should seek to complement
and preserve its historical background and should not dominate them.
In addition to the above mentioned listed buildings there are several locally listed buildings
within the area including the Cooperative building workplace in Mona Street and the
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Former Railway public house. The former Co-op’s water tower and the church tower are
prominent in the skyline and any new developments will also have to ensure a sensitive
relationship with the vertical elements of the Listed Buildings. Due to differing ground
levels and the distance away from the listed buildings, the tall buildings of Pendleton do
not interrupt or distract from views of these prominent landmarks. It is considered that the
introduction of such a large scale development in a prominent location will considerably
detract from the settings of both the nearby listed building and locally listed buildings and
therefore is contrary to the aims of policies ER3, CH2 and CH8.
Amenity
Policy DES 7 states all new development will be required to have regard to provide
potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight,
privacy, aspect and layout. It 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.
The proposed building would be 12 storeys in height fronting onto Broad Street, reducing
to 10 storeys in height on Gardner Street. As mentioned previously there are 2 storey
dwellings located to the east of the site. The distance between the proposed building and
the existing dwelling houses would be 4.6m to the 12 storey element and 5m to the 10
storey element at the closest points. The relationship between the existing building and
dwelling house is 4.6m to the 2 storey element and 1.5m to the 3 storey building.
Although the existing building undoubtedly dominates the gardens of the properties on
Gardner Street an increase in height from 2 storeys to 12 storeys (6.35m – 40m) is
considered to be unacceptable and would be overly dominant to the detriment of the
residential properties on Gardner Street.
In support of the proposed application the applicant provided a wind assessment and a
sunlight/shadowing assessment.
The wind assessment states that the building has been designed in such away as to
minimise the impact of down drafts or unstable wind areas within the area. It concludes that
the tower will simply divert wind and airflow around so that it may continue as normal. The
wind assessment has been produced by a computer programme called Ecotect. Although
visual diagrams have been provided to illustrate wind paths and the frequency of prevailing
winds, no references have been made to where the wind data has come from. The wind
assessments include directional arrows that are shaded as red high and yellow low,
however no data has been provided to identify the potential wind speeds at ground level.
Since no quantifiable data has been provided in regards to this wind assessment it is not
considered that this can be afforded much weight in assessing the wind speeds at ground
level.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
The sunlight/ shadowing survey provides assessments for the hours of 10am, 12pm and
3pm for all April, July and October. Additional surveys for the hours of 8am and 5pm were
requested to enable the full impact of overshadowing to be assessed especially for the
months of spring and winter when the shadow’s are at their longest, although it is
acknowledged that the hours of daylight are shorter at this time of the year. The applicant
provided no further assessments as it was considered that the shadows at other times of the
year are of an infinite length and therefore give a false perspective.
The existing building obviously produces an element of overshadowing at present,
however the submitted assessments show the properties at 1-9 Gardner Street in
considerable shade in the afternoons for all three months. Although no diagrams have been
provided to show the impact of shading in the early evening, the diagrams indicate that the
properties at 2-18 Gardner Street would be considerably overshadowed. It is considered
that the amount of overshadowing provided by this development would unacceptably
hamper the living conditions of the nearby residents. It is worth noting that the existing
building also results in a element of overshadowing to the existing residential properties,
however the proposed building would considerably exacerbate the problem to an
unacceptable level.
As mentioned previously the windows of the proposed development have been designed in
such away as to prevent direct overlooking from the windows of the habitable rooms within
the proposed development. Although diagrams have been provided to demonstrate how the
second skin of the building will prevent overlooking when stood directly facing the
window by the installation of opaque glass on the outer layer, it does not prevent direct
overlooking when stood at an angle. Policy DES7 also requires a suitable level of amenity
for future users of the development and it is considered that given habitable rooms would
have limited outlook due to the opaque glass and the level of natural light is not known then
the proposed window arrangement is likely to result in reduced living conditions for the
future users.
Although requested, no noise assessment has been provided to accompany this application.
The Director of Environmental Services has raised concerns regarding the acoustic
protection of the site and considers that as the twin-faēade approach is a novel design then
an acoustic assessment in necessary in order to be able to fully assess the development. It is
also considered that an acoustic assessment may in itself require some redesign of the
system to protect against the high ambient noise levels found in this location.
The Director of Environmental Services has raised concerns regarding the ambient air
quality at the proposed development site, which is located within a declared air quality
management area for Nitrogen Oxides. Of particular concern is the ventilation system to be
used which draws air from ground level through the development to all levels, as the
ground level air is poor quality and therefore all apartments would be supplied with poor
quality air to the detriment of future users.
Accessibility
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Policy DES2 states that the design and layout of new development will be required to
ensure the development is fully accessible, maximise the movement of pedestrians and
cyclists, 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 A1 states that planning applications for developments likely to give rise to
significant transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a
transport assessment and where appropriate a travel plan.
Policy DES2 states that development proposals are required to make adequate provision
for safe and convenient access by the disabled, other people with limited or impaired
mobility, pedestrians and cyclists.
Policy A10 states that new developments are required to make appropriate provision for
disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists in accordance with the minimum standards set
out in the UDP, not exceed the maximum car parking standards set out in appendix C of the
UDP and provide the parking facilities in a manner consistent with the provision and
maintenance of adequate standards of safety and security.
The proposed development provides the provision of 7 carparking spaces one of which is to
be for disabled parking. The parking is for use by both the retail and student
accommodation element of the development. The applicant has stated that the low level of
carparking provision is due to the sites good links to public transport and the fact that the
retail element is to serve local needs. Nevertheless the site is still required to meet the
minimum standards set out in the UDP for disabled parking, cycle parking and motorcycle
parking provision. As a minimum it is considered that one disabled carparking space
should be provided for each of the scheme elements, giving a total of 2 spaces. This is
considered to be the minimum required given that there are 9 disabled units proposed on
site.
A minimum of 2 cycle spaces are required to the retail element of the development. Given
the fact that students will be unable to keep cars at the site provision should be made for a
minimum of 15-20% cycle storage provision (around 30 spaces). The applicant currently
proposes 10% provision for cycle storage although the only space identified for these
cycles to be stored is a room 3.3m x 2.6 for 13 cycles.
In addition to the disabled and cycle storage provision the development also requires a
minimum of 3 motorcycle spaces to be provided on site.
The proposed ground floor is to be located 1.5m above ground level, access to the retail
unit is via some steps and access for disabled persons is by a passenger lift located adjacent
to the steps. It appears from the plans provided that the entrance to the residential lobby is
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
still 1.5m above ground level, however it is not clear how this would be accessed by people
entering from the street.
Although information has been requested from the applicant, it is not clear how both the
retail and the student accommodation will be serviced, no provision appears to have been
made for bin storage or for deliveries and therefore it is not possible to fully assess whether
servicing the property is physical possible or what impact this would have on the amenity
of nearby residents.
Sustainability
Policy ST1 states that development will be required to contribute towards the creation and
maintenance of a sustainable urban neighbourhood.
Policy ST7 states that mixed use development that minimises the need to travel will be
focused in locations well served by public transport.
Policy ST8 requires development to contribute towards enhanced standards of
environmental quality through high standards of design, amenity, safety and environmental
maintenance and management.
It is considered that the proposed development would provide a mix of uses helping to
create a sustainable neighbourhood.
Planning Obligations
Policy DEV5 states that development that would have an adverse impact on any interest of
acknowledged importance or would result in a material increase in the need or demand for
infrastructure, services, facilities or maintenance will only be granted planning permission
if planning obligations would ensure that adequate mitigation measures are put in place.
If the application is to be approved then it would require a planning obligation in
accordance with policy DEV5.
CONCLUSION
The application is considered to be inappropriate in regards scale, massing and design, not
only would the development have an adverse impact on the street scene and the setting of
listed buildings, the development would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
residents on Gardner Street. The development has inadequate levels of parking and cycle
provision and therefore it is recommended that the application be refused.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would not provide adequate accommodation within the
curtilage of the site for the parking, loading and unloading of vehicles in connection
with the servicing of the retail and student accommodation units, contrary to policy A8
of the Adopted City Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. Inadequate levels of disabled car parking, cycle parking and motorcycle parking has
been provided on site and therefore the application is contrary to policy A10 of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan
3. The proposed development would form an unduly obtrusive feature in the street-scene
and would seriously injure the visual amenity of the area by reason of its scale,
massing, design and height, contrary to the aims of policies DES1, DES5 and EN23 of
the Adopted UDP.
4. The proposed development by vitue of is scale, height and design would have an
adverse impact on the setting of nearby statutory and locally listed buildings, in
particular the Church of St Thomas and the former Co-op building and therefore is
contrary to policies CH2 and CH8 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan
5. The proposed development by virtue of its design, massing and height would give rise
to an unacceptable level of overshadowing and loss of privacy to the residents of
Gardner Street contrary to policy DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
6. The proposed development by virtue the internal window arrangement would serverly
reduce the outlook of the future residents of the development and is therefore contrary
to policy DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. Insufficient details have been submitted to enable the full implications the need for
student accommodation to be fully assessed in accordance with policy H7 of the
Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policy HOU7 of the Adopted
Housing Planning Guidance.
8. Insufficient details have been submitted to enable the full implications of the impact of
air quality and noise impacts to be fully assessed.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
APPLICATION No:
06/53834/FUL
APPLICANT:
Tashbar School
LOCATION:
Tashbar School 20 Upper Park Road Salford M7 4HL
PROPOSAL:
Phased demolition of existing school and erection of a new
primary school/nursery together with associated car
parking
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
It is intended to carry out a phased demolition and erection of a new primary/nursery
school to replace the existing Tashbar School.
The site is approximately 0.45 hectares in size and has a 68 metre frontage to Upper Park
Road. The school site is adjoined on 3 sides by existing residential development,
comprising a detached bungalow to the west and modern apartments to the north (Milton
Court) and east (Langley Court) plus very large semi detached properties in commercial
useage, to the north fronting on to Bury Old Road. Directly across Upper Park Road are
existing educational establishments.
The existing site comprises 3 school buildings plus open areas along the Upper Park Road
frontage providing outdoor play facilities. The two buildings along the rear boundary are
single storey and the main teaching block is a Victorian 3 – 4 storey building sited on the
Upper Park Road frontage.
The school is a 2 form entry boys primary school and is a voluntary –aided school as part of
the maintained sector under the jurisdiction of the council. There would be a 60 intake per
year which would be split between the infants, juniors and nursery. There are also nursery
and creche facilities in the ground floor of the neighbouring Levi House.
The existing access to the east of the frontage will remain as existing and on completion of
the development there will be a limited area adjacent to the site access for 4 car parking
spaces plus servicing.
The new buildings will be constructed in 3 phases in order to allow the school to continue
to function during the rebuilding.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
The first phase will be the demolition of the single storey building adjacent to Milton
Court. This will then be replaced by a 3 storey teaching block including a roof top play area
on the second floor. The new building would be sited 8 metres from the northern boundary
(existing school building = 2.5m) and 12 metres from the existing blank elevation to Milton
Court. A playground for reception classes will be provided adjacent to the northern
boundary with Milton Court and an infants’ playground being located between the new
building and Upper Park Road.
The second phase will be the demolition of the main building on the Upper Park Road
frontage and its rebuilding as a 2 storey block providing assembly facilities and teaching
areas. The new building is to be sited 9.25 metres from the eastern boundary with Langley
Court and a minimum of 23 metres (existing school building = 22m) from the actual
building containing apartments at Langley Court.
The third and final phase is the demolition of the single storey building at the rear of the site
and its replacement with a 2 storey building with a roof top play area above. The new
building would be 5.5 metres from the northern boundary (the existing school buildings
extend up to the boundary) and 26 metres from the rear elevation of the main properties at
Broadhurst and Enfield House, Bury Old Road. To the east the distances would be 8 metres
to the boundary and 22 metres between windows and the apartment block (Langley Court).
To the west the distance would be 8metres to the boundary and 17 metres to the apartment
block (Milton Court), the habitable windows would not however directly face the new
school building, which extends only 1 metre beyond the limit of Milton Court.
The roof top play areas are to be treated with artificial grass in order to provide a diffuse
surface that will reduce noise. It is further proposed to provide a screen around the area
comprising an opaque but solid material to act as a noise baffle and to provide additional
safety.
3 visitors parking spaces and one space for a disabled person are to be provided.
It is proposed to finish the building in a buff brick with white rendered panels. The frontage
to upper park Road will be presented by two elements;
a traditionally designed teaching block with a pitched roof detail and
the assembly/gymnasium block which will be finished in contrasting buff and dark
red artificial stonework with a mansard style roof detail.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted in 1998 for the erection of single storey rear extensions to
existing school to provide nursery unit (98/37565/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – The main comments are in respect of the
roof top playground. The elevated playground provides a greater level of screening to the
lower floors of adjacent residential uses, than a traditional ground floor play area. The
proposed screening to the roof top playground whilst not capable of removing all noise
from the playground does represent a suitable means of minimising the adverse effects. It
does offer the best solution other than providing a totally enclosed facility, which would be
costly and not necessarily proportionate to the benefits gained.
The risks of contamination on this site are considered to be low and it is not within 250
metres of any known landfill but it is recommended that a desk top study be undertaken
(required by condition) to ensure that all aspects of possible contamination is considered
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – In addition to perimeter fencing
it is recommended that there should be internal fencing to restrict access to the buildings.
Concern has also been expressed about the deeply recessed main entrance which would not
allow adequate surveillance.
Head of Engineering and Highways – No objections
Broughton Park Residents Association – Welcomes the proposed development and
considers the scale of the development to be appropriate for this site. The loss of one tree,
whilst regrettable, is considered to be outweighed by the new planting. The access
provided for disabled persons is seen as a positive step and the provision of a roof top play
area is considered to be a “good idea”. Overall the scheme is considered to be a distinct
improvement which will form an attractive frontage.
Arboriculturalist – No objections in principle but recommends a number of conditions
relating to tree protection.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 28th November 2006.
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on 30th November 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 - 69 Gan Eden Stanley Road
13, 23, 26, 28, 30, Upper Park Road
Flat 1 – 16 Ingledene Court Upper Park Road
Flat 1 – 15 Langley Court Upper Park Road
13, Upper Park Road
Broadhurst (7), Enfield House (5), Levi House (8), Bury Old Road
Flat 1 – 30 Milton Court, Bury Old Road
7- 12 Ravenhurst, Bury Old Road
Freedman Fankl and Taylor Bury Old Road
Higher Broughton Hebrew Congregation, Bury Old Road
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
1 –9 4 Cadogan Place
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 6 individual letters of objection together with joint responses from
residents of Langley Court, letters from the management company for Milton Court and the
Arcon Housing Association (Langley Court). There has also been a meeting held with the
applicant and representatives from Langley Court and Milton Court. The following issues
have been raised:
There are considerable problems arising from the existing school in terms of noise,
traffic and litter.
Many of the adjoining residents are elderly
The proposed roof top play area will be a source of noise and nuisance.
There will be a loss of light and outlook.
There will be a loss of privacy arising from the 2 storey buildings and roof top area.
The development will be too close to flat 25-30 at Milton Court.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policy DP1:
Policy DP2:
Policy DP3:
Policy DP4:
Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
Enhancing the Quality of Life
Quality in New Development
Promoting Sustainable Economic Growth and Competitiveness and Social
Inclusion
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES1: Respecting Context
DES2: Circulation and Movement
DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9: Landscaping
DES10: Design and Crime
EN12: Important Landscape Features
EN13 – Protected Trees
EN17: Pollution Control
EHC1: Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges
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
EN16: Contaminated Land
EN17: Pollution Control
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
OTHER LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document.
Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document.
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policy L1:
Health and Education Services Provision
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are:the principle of a replacement school in this location
the scale, design, appearance and impact on the amenity of local residents
the impact on the appearance and character of the locality
impact on existing trees.
Principle of Development
The principle of the proposed development must be considered against policy EHC1 –
Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges that places a general presumption in
favour of such provision provided six fundamental criteria are met. Each criteria is
considered in turn below:
 The development would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of
neighbouring uses
I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the
amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of adjacent properties. This is discussed in
more detail below within the amenity section.

An adequate standard of playing field and other recreation provision in an
accessible and convenient location is provided
There are no existing or proposed playing fields associated with this primary school. The
current play areas would be re-located to the roof of the building.

The development is accessible by a range of means of transport, particularly foot,
cycle and public transport
I am satisfied that the development is accessible by a range of means of transport, this is
discussed in more detail below within the access section.

The development incorporates adequate provision for disabled access
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
The design and access statement states that the development would be DDA compliant.
The provision of 1 disabled car parking space is proposed but this will need to be increased
to 2 spaces in accordance with UDP policy A10, which can be achieved by imposing a
planning condition. I therefore have no objection to the application in this regard.

The development would not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or
have an adverse impact on highway safety in terms of traffic generation, parking or
servicing
I am satisfied that the development would not result in unacceptable traffic congestion or
be detrimental to highway safety. This is discussed in more detail below within the access
section.

The development makes provision, wherever possible, for community use of the
building and grounds.
A condition has been attached requesting
In conclusion, I have no objection to the principal of development in that I consider the
proposed development to comply with policy EHC1 of the UDP, subject to the imposition
of appropriate conditions discussed above.
Design and appearance
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
local identity and distinctiveness.
The existing school is of limited architectural merit and its demolition to provide modern
facilities on the same site would be acceptable. The development site is largely landlocked
at the rear by residential properties on three sides and by Upper Park Road to the south.
The area contains a variety of architectural styles and building materials. The proposals are
considered to adequately reflect the character of the area and are considered appropriate to
this maturely landscaped site.
A condition requiring the submission of sample materials would be attached to any
planning consent and I am satisfied that this will ensure the materials are of sufficient
quality and appropriate colour.
Neighbouring residential properties vary considerably in height and the height of the
development proposed is not considered to adversely affect the setting of adjacent
residential properties in respect of height, massing and scale.
Amenity
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Policy DES7 considers that all new development would not be permitted where it would
have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments.
The distance around the proposed buildings are consistent with the Council’s normal
standards. One specific objection refers to the impact on certain apartments in Milton
Court. The new building does not extend significantly beyond Milton Court and the
existing direct aspects from the apartments will not be affected by the new building. This
arrangement combined with a separation of 17 metres enusres that the scheme will not
have any significant adverse impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of the
apartments.
Policy EN17 relates to pollution control and considers that development proposals that
would be likely to cause or contribute towards a significant increase in pollution to the air,
by reason of noise, odour, artificial light or vibration, will not be permitted.
Perhaps the most unusual element of the scheme is the roof top play area. This will bring
benefits to neighbours at ground and first floors by reason of noise reduction. However
due to its elevated position noise is likely to be greater at upper floor levels of neighbouring
properties. However, the scheme does provide for significant noise reduction measures
with which the Strategic Director of Environmental Services consider to be acceptable. It
should also be said that the noise generating activities will be at limited times during the
day and only during school hours.
I am satisfied that the application would not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact
on the amenity of residents due to overlooking or loss of privacy and would not result in
unacceptable disturbance in terms of noise subject to conditions being attached to any
consent relating to external lighting, noise from amplification equipment, noise from fixed
plant and equipment, hours of operation of play areas. The application therefore accords
with Policies DES7 and EN17.
Access
UDP Policy A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled requires development proposals to
make adequate provision for safe and convenient access by the disabled, pedestrians and
cyclists through the protection and improvement of key routes.
UDP Policy A8- Impact of Development on the Highway Network states that development
will not be permitted where it would compromise highway safety by virtue of traffic
generation and access.
UDP Policy A10 states that development will be required to make adequate provision for
disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
UDP Policy DES2 – Circulation and Movement requires the design and layout of new
development to be fully accessible to all people, maximise the movement of pedestrians
and cyclists to, through and around the site, enable pedestrians to navigate their way
through an area by providing appropriate views, vistas and transport links, enable safe,
direct and convenient access to public transport facilities and other local amenities and
minimise potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
UDP Policy A1 states that planning applications for developments likely to give rise to
significant transport implications should be accompanied by a travel plan.
The site represents the re-development of the school on the existing site incorporating the
existing vehicular access. The site continues to be accessible via public transport and car,
as well as on foot and by cycle and a travel plan will not be required.
With respect to objectors concerns regarding traffic congestion along Upper Park Road, as
identified above, the school would utilise the existing vehicular access on what is a fairly
constrained site. The proposed development will not significantly alter the existing
situation on the highway.
The applicant has stated that the staff are primarily local residents who do not use cars and
hence parking proposals have been limited to 3 for visitors and 1 for a disabled person. I
propose however that a condition be attached requiring further details of this provision,
increasing the disabled spaces to 2. There are also no indicated cycle facilities and I again
propose a condition requiring cycling facilities to be provided.
On the basis of the information submitted, I am satisfied that the proposed access
arrangements would not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or adversely
affect highway safety.
Landscaping
Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and
soft landscaping provision. Policy EN12 considers that development that would have a
detrimental impact on, or result in the loss of, any important landscape feature will not be
permitted. Policy EN13 states that development that would result in an unacceptable loss
of protected trees will not be permitted.
The Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document contains further policies
and guidance in relation to tree protection that includes the requirement to replace trees that
are lost on a two for one basis.
The applicant has submitted a tree survey in support of the application. The proposal
would include the loss of two tree protected by the City of Salford Tree Preservation Order
No. 4 and 209. The two trees a located within the site and have a limited visibility from the
highway due to the band of protected trees along the frontage. The Consultant
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Arboriculturalist has no objections to the proposal but recommends a number of conditions
to ensure that the trees are protected throughout the construction phase.
Insufficient detail has been submitted with the application relating to the proposed hard and
soft landscaping on site. It is therefore recommended that a landscaping condition be
attached to any planning consent requiring the submission, approval and implementation of
a scheme before the new school is first brought into use. In accordance with the Trees and
Development SPD, this condition would ensure that any trees removed are replaced on site
on a two for one basis.
Crime Prevention
Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to
discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime. Further detailed policies and
guidance are provided in the Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document.
The comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer have been relayed to the agent
who has confirmed a willingness to engage directly with GMP in order to address the
concerns and a condition is attached requesting a crime prevention plan to be submitted.
Sustainable Construction and Environmental Performance
UDP Policy EN22 states that development proposals for development with a floorspace in
excess 5000m2 will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the impact on the
conservation of non-renewable resources, and on the local and global environments, has
been minimised as far as practicable; and full consideration has been given to the use of
realistic renewable energy options, and such measures have been incorporated into the
development where practicable.
The site is has a florspace less than 5000m2 however it is a requirement of the Department
for Education and Schools that new school buildings achieve a ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’
BREEAM Schools rating.
This is the industry standard, Building Research
Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Methodology tailored specifially for schools.
The applicants have provided a statement confirming that the deisgn will be progressed to
achieve a ‘very good’ rating. To ensure such a positive outcome for the purposes of this
planning application it is recommended that a condition be imposed to that effect.
Nature Conservation and Biodiversity
UDP Policy EN10 – Protection of Species states that development which would be likely to
have an adverse impact on legally protected species will only be permitted where
mitigation measures are put in place to maintain the population level of the species at a
favourable conservation status within its natural range.
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Further detailed policies and guidance are provided in the adopted Nature Conservation
and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document, including Policy NCB1 –
Maintaining and Enhancing Biodiversity that states that development proposals should
seek to maintain and enhance biodiversity and the nature conservation interest of sites.
All species of bats are European Protected Species with full protection at all times under
Schedule 2 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994. Bat roosts are
also protected, even when unoccupied. Bats are found across Salford and roost in a variety
of buildings, structures and natural features including trees with hollows, cracks and
cavities and stone or/brick built structures. Given the proposals involve the demolition of
the existing school building and the removal of a tree, a bat survey will be required to be
undertaken by an appropriately licensed ecologist prior to any demolition.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposed development would provide a modern educational facility. The
existing vehicular access would be utilised ensuring that there would be no detrimental
impact on highway safety. The scheme would have significant benefits for the local
community and would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents. The design is such that the proposed building would make a
positive contribution to the surrounding area. Adequate replacement trees would be
provided to compensate for the felling of trees on site. The application accords with the
relevant policies of the UDP.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development
hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the phasing shown on
submitted Drawing No. M098 10
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.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
4. Notwithstanding the details of the car parking layout on drawing M2098 29 the
proposal should include a minimum of 2 disabled parking bays.
5. Prior to the commencement of development a desk study shall be been submitted and
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The study shall investigate and
produce an assessment of the risk of the potential for on-site contamination. If the desk
study identifies potential contamination, prior to commencement of development the
developer shall submit a site investigation report for the approval of the Local Planning
Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground
contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and
assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act
1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The
investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and
safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and
landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological
systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning
Authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and
remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the
developer prior to occupation of the site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall
be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion
Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance
with those agreed by the Local Planning Authority
6. 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.
7. The rating level (LAeq,T) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the
development, when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the background noise
level (LA90,T) by more than -5dB at any time when measured at the nearest noise
sensitive premises. Noise measurements and assessments shall be carried out
according to BS4142; 1997.
8. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, prior to the commencement of development a
scheme detailing noise attenuation measures in association with the roof top play areas
shall be submitted to and approved in writing. The scheme shall include samples of
materials to be used. The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to first
use.
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Prior to discharge of this condition, a Completion Report shall be submitted to the LPA
for approval. The Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site
were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
9. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, details of proposed cycle storage facilities shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority The facilities
shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation and
shall be made available for use thereafter.
10. The roof top play areas shall NOT be used on Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall
ONLY be used between the hours of 8.30am to 5pm Monday to Fridays.
11. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the
Local Planning Authority has received and approved in writing a site operating
statement for each phase of construction in relation to provision of street sweeping,
permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials and delivery and
collection of equipment and the 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
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
12. The development hereby approved shall achieve a post-construction Building Research
Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) Schools rating of 'very
good' or 'excellent', unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
A post-construction review certificate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority before any of the buildings hereby approved are first used,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
13. Within 1 month prior to demolition a full survey of the building shall be undertaken to
establish whether or not it is being used as a hibernation site, roost or breeding site by
bats (Chiroptera). Should the presence of bats be confirmed no development shall
commence until the appropriate licence has been made to and granted by English
Nature for the relocation of the bats.
14. 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.
15. No trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (other than those clearly
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
shown to be so affected on the submitted plan) shall be topped, lopped or cut down
without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.
16. Prior to the school building hereby approved being first brought into use, a community
use scheme relating, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The Scheme shall include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by
non-school users/non-members, changing provision, management responsibilities and
include a mechanism for review. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full
and shall remain in place whilst the use is in operation unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the local planning authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: In order to ensure that any impact on the environment and the amenity of
neighbouring residents is minimised, in accordance with policies DEV1 and EN20 of
the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan and policies DES7 and EN14 of
the Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. To ensure an adequate provision of disabled parking bays in accordance with policy
DES2 and A10 of the Adopted UDP.
5. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
6. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
7. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
8. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
9. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes, in accordance with
Policy A10 of the Adopted UDP.
10. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
11. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
12. Reason: In the interests of resource conservation and environmental sustainability.
This is in accordance with Policy EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan 2004-2016.
13. In order to ensure the protection of bats in accordance with Policy EN10 of the City of
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Salford UDP.
14. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
15. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
16. Reason: To ensure satisfactory community facilities and to maximise community
involvement that secures continuity of use is delivered. This is in accordance with
Policies EHC1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours
indicated above.
2. The 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. Please see attached comments from Greater Manchester Police.
APPLICATION No:
07/54446/FUL
APPLICANT:
Blackburn Property Limited
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
LOCATION:
Site Of Former Wardley Service Station Manchester Road
Wardley Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 22 no. three storey town houses including
construction of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses
together with associated landscaping and car parking
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant, 0.33 hectare site fronting Manchester Road in the
Swinton area of the City. A petrol filling station used to occupy the site but was
demolished in 2006 and the site cleared for redevelopment. A tree report submitted in
support of the application indicates that there are currently 26, mainly self-seeded trees,
located primarily towards the rear of the site.
The application site lies in a predominantly residential area. Short rows of two-storey
terraced houses face the site to the north on the opposite side of Manchester Road between
which lies the entrance to the Wardley Recreation Ground area of public open space. To
the east lies more two storey terraced houses fronting Manchester Road behind which a
collection of relatively modern, detached and semi-detached houses front Banbury Mews.
Copplestone Court and Longview Court comprising two three-storey blocks of flats and a
single two-storey block of flats lie immediately to the west of the application site. The
Manchester to Wigan railway line and its associated tree-lined embankments lie
immediately to the south of the site beyond which the industrial 'shed' buildings of the
Wardley Industrial Estate are found.
This application seeks permission for the development of 22 three-storey, three-bedroom
(plus study) townhouses suitable for families. Each house would benefit from front and
rear gardens and a single, on-street parking space. The proposed townhouses are split into
two parallel rows with nine fronting Manchester Road itself and thirteen to the rear of the
site. Three townhouses at the rear of the site closest to Banbury Mews have been brought
forward to align with adjacent properties to protect the amenity of the occupants of existing
properties. Vehicular access is gained directly from Manchester Road, incorporating an
existing crossover, leading to a central parking court where on-street parking spaces are
clustered in parallel rows. A turning head has been provided at the end of the access road
able to accommodate waste collection vehicles.
All of the proposed townhouses are of a uniform appearance with pitched roofs and are
essentially a slightly larger, modern interpretation of the traditional terraced houses found
across the City. Rendered gables projecting from the street facing elevations help animate,
add depth and break up the mass of the terraces and also provide space for enclosed bin
stores. Non-street facing, south elevations are of a more modern appearance incorporating
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
full height glazing with sliding solar shading panels and balconies in order to maximise the
amount of natural light penetrating the buildings. The palette of materials selected reflect
those of surrounding buildings and are dominated by red brick, render (three similar neutral
colours) and slate coloured roof tiles together with white aluminium framed doors and
windows, powder coated steel balcony railings and sliding solar panels of three similar
neutral colours.
Externally, indicative landscaping proposals state that front gardens would be enclosed by
low level walls and railings. The rear gardens of the row backing onto the railway line
would be enclosed by two metre high fencing whilst the rear gardens of the front row
would be slightly lower at 1.8 metres high with visually permeable upper panels to increase
surveillance. The surface of the access road and footpaths would be tarmacadam with
pedestrian crossing points defined by contrasting setts or blocks. A sub station is proposed
to serve the development.
The applicant has submitted the following documents in support of the application:



Design and Access Statement
Tree Survey
Site Investigations/Contamination Documents
SITE HISTORY
There are no previous planning decisions on the site of relevance to the application.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services - No objection in principle providing
conditions are attached to any consent to secure the following:



further detailed site investigation reports, including appropriate mitigation
measures, be submitted, approved in writing and implemented in full prior to first
occupation to address on-site gas and ground contamination given previous uses
and the need for further assessment if the site is to be used for residential purposes
as identified in the submitted documents;
the submission, written approval and implementation of a noise assessment and
appropriate acoustic attenuation measures to protect the amenity of future
occupants given the site's proximity to a busy radial road traffic route, a railway line
and industrial uses;
the submission, written approval and implementation of an external lighting
scheme to protect the amenity of existing and future residents.
United Utilities – No objection in principle. Advice is provided.
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
The Environment Agency – No objection in principle following a review of the submitted
site investigation / contamination reports and are generally satisfied that the remediation
undertaken on site has reduced the risk to controlled waters. They do however recommend
that further investigations, monitoring and where necessary remediation works are carried
out.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objection in principle but
made the following comments:
1.
given the front row of houses would have dual access points it is important that rear
doors are as secure as the front doors;
the front row of houses rear boundary treatments should be at least 1.8 metres high
to create a secure space but the upper half of the boundary should be visually
permeable to ensure cars can be seen from the house at ground floor level with
gates lockable at both sides; and
the boundaries of the site should be securely fenced particularly at the rear where it
could be vulnerable to attack.
2.
3.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive - No objection or comments to make.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by way of site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flats 1 to 19 Copplestone Court
Flats 1 to 4 Longview Court
2 to 8 (evens) Banbury Mews
631 to 647 (odds) Manchester Road
576 to 604 (evens) Manchester Road
614 to 618 (evens) Manchester Road
The Studio, Invar Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity
from the residents of 2 Banbury Mews that lies directly adjacent to the application site.
The following issues have been raised:



the height of the proposed three storey townhouses in relation to their two storey
house;
loss of light to their downstairs toilet;
the proposed layout will affect their back garden as the proposed building to the
rear of the site is set further back from their property.
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
They also express concern about the height of the proposed sub-station, the distance
between their property and the proposed dwellings and uncertainty over what will separate
their property from the new development.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
The following policies from the adopted RSS are considered to be of relevance:
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DP1 – Economy in the use of Land and Buildings
UR4 – Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
UR7 – Regional Housing Provision
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
ST11 – Location of New Development
ST12 – Development Density
ST14 - Global Environment
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Circulation and Movement
DES4 - Relationship of Development to Public Space
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 - Landscaping
DES10 – Design and Crime
DES11 - Design Statements
H1- Provision of New Housing Development
H2 – Managing the Supply of Housing
H4 – Affordable Housing
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing
Development
A2 - Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A8 – Impact of Development of the Highway Network
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
EN12 - Important Landscape Features
EN16 - Contaminated Land
EN17 – Pollution Control
EN18 - Protection of Water Resources
EN23 - Environmental Improvement Corridors
R2 – Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
DEV5 – Planning Conditions and Obligations
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
OTHER LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
Adopted Housing Planning Guidance
Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document
Salford Greenspace Strategy Supplementary Planning Document
Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document
Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document
House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
The following policies of the Draft RSS – The North West Plan (March 2006) are
considered to be of relevance:
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
L4 - Regional Housing Provision
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of residential
development in this location is acceptable; whether the density proposed is acceptable;
whether an acceptable mix of house types is proposed; whether the design of the buildings
are acceptable; whether the development's impact on the global environment is acceptable;
whether there would be an unacceptable impact on the amenity of future and neighbouring
residents; whether the applicant has adequately dealt with issues relating to crime
prevention; whether the proposed access arrangements and level of car, motorcycle and
cycle parking are acceptable; whether on-site contamination issues have been adequately
addressed; whether acceptable planning obligations would be delivered; whether the
landscaping proposals and impact on existing trees is acceptable; and whether the proposed
development complies with other relevant policies of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan. I shall deal with each of these issues below.
Principle of the Redevelopment of the Site
UDP Policy ST11 seeks to ensure that new development is located on the most sustainable
sites within the City and that less sustainable sites are only brought forward where
necessary. The re-use and conversion of existing buildings is made a priority followed by
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
previously developed land in locations that are well served by a variety of means of
transport and are accessible to housing, employment, services and other infrastructure.
Policy H2 requires the release of land for housing development to be managed in
accordance with the sequential approach set out in Policy ST11.
RSS Policy DP1 requires economy in the use of land and buildings. It states that
development plans should adopt a sequential approach to meeting housing needs as
follows: firstly, the effective use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban
areas; secondly, the use of previously developed land; and finally the development of
previously undeveloped land, where it would avoid areas of important open space, is well
located in relation to houses, jobs, other services and infrastructure and is or can be made
accessible by public transport, walking or cycling. RSS Policy UR4 adds to these
objectives stating that:
“The redevelopment and re-use of vacant sites and buildings within
urban areas should be a priority…[and that]…additional
development should be encouraged to make best use of such sites in
sustainable locations”
Policy DP1 of Draft RSS also encourages the effective use of land, buildings and
infrastructure and advocates the sequential approach to meeting development needs, as
outlined in Adopted RSS Policy DP1.
The principle of development on this brownfield site is considered appropriate and
performs well against UDP Policy ST11 given the site's close proximity to public transport
services and other key infrastructure. The site is very well served by public transport with
numerous bus services running along Manchester Road and Moorside Railway Station
only 300 metres to the east. Wardley Recreation Ground faces the site on the opposite side
of Manchester Road giving future residents easy access to areas of public open space.
Swinton Town Centre is also easily accessible located a little over one kilometre to the east.
Given the fact that the proposal involves the development of previously developed land in a
sustainable location, the redevelopment of the site is supported in principle insofar as it
would accord with the sequential approach to development as set out in Policy DP1 of RSS
and UDP Policies ST11 and H2 and Policy DP1 of the Draft RSS.
Principle of Proposed Use
UDP Policy H2 seeks to ensure that an adequate supply of new housing is provided across
the City in accordance with targets set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy. In response,
the policy seeks to restrict housing development in areas where there is evidence of an
“unacceptable actual or potential oversupply of housing”.
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Draft RSS Policy L4 increases the City’s annual rate of housing provision to 1,600
dwellings per annum, a threefold increase from current provision set out in RSS Policy
UR7 at 530 dwellings per annum.
At the current time there is no clear evidence of an oversupply of housing in this area. In
addition, evidence at the national, regional and local level suggests that household growth
is likely to continue, and as a result Draft RSS Policy L4 seeks to significantly increase the
City’s annual housing target. The provision of 42 housing units on the application site is
therefore considered to be in full accordance with UDP Policy H2.
Density
UDP Policy ST12 states that development within the regional centre, town centres, and
close to key public transport routes and interchanges will be required to achieve a high
density appropriate to the location and context.
UDP Policy H1 states that new housing development should be built at appropriate
densities which will be no less than 30 dwellings per hectare throughout the City and no
less than 50 dwellings per hectare on sites within or adjoining designated mixed use areas,
town and neighbourhood centres and major transport nodes along good quality public
transport corridors. It goes on to state that these standards may be varied, having regard to
other criteria listed in the policy.
The proposed development creates a density of 67 dwellings per hectare.
Whilst more than double the minimum citywide requirement, the proposed
density is considered acceptable given the site’s sustainable location,
particularly in respect of its proximity to key public transport infrastructure,
employment opportunities and other facilities. Although the density
proposed is higher than average in this part of the City, I am satisfied that a
high quality design solution has been found that successfully integrates the
development into its surroundings. On that basis, and given the site’s
sustainable location, I consider the proposed density to be in accordance with
UDP Policies ST12 and H1 and therefore have no objection in principle to the
application in this regard.
Housing Type and Size
UDP Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of
a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size and type.
The City's adopted Housing Planning Guidance is a material consideration in the
determination of planning applications and specifically supplements UDP Policies H1 and
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
H4. The guidance seeks to secure a sustainable mix of dwelling to meet housing need and
contains a number of specific policies of relevance discussed in turn below:
Policy HOU1 - Type of New Dwellings
This policy states that the large majority of new dwellings in this part of the City should be
in the form of houses rather than apartments to reflect the general character of the area and
the generally lower levels of accessibility compared to other parts of the City. The policy
goes on allow alternative approaches on individual sites where there are specific
circumstances that justify this and advocates apartments as the most appropriate form of
new housing in the City’s defined Town and Neighbourhood Centres to help maximise the
number of people who have excellent access to local facilities.
Given that the dwelling types proposed are solely family sized houses with front and rear
gardens the proposals are wholly consistent with this policy objective.
Policy HOU2 – Size of New Dwellings
This policy states that the majority of new houses should have at least three bedrooms.
All of the proposed houses have three bedrooms and a further room identified as a study
that could be used as a fourth bedroom. The proposals are therefore wholly consistent with
this policy objective
Affordable Housing
UDP Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of
a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of tenure and affordability.
UDP Policy H4 states that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable
housing to meet local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the Council,
to provide affordable housing, of appropriate types, on all residential sites over 1 hectare or
in housing developments of more than 25 dwellings.
Policy HOU3 of the Councils Housing Planning Guidance supplements UDP Policy H4 by
stating that on all residential sites over 1 hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings,
or in housing developments of 25 or more dwellings, 20% of the dwellings should be in the
form of affordable housing. A lower proportion of affordable housing may be permitted
where material considerations indicate that this would be appropriate. Exceptional
circumstances include where there are exceptional costs associated with the development
or where the scheme was substantially developed before the adoption of the Guidance on
20 December 2006.
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Given the proposed number of dwellings falls below the threshold of 25 units identified in
the above policies I have no objection to the proposal without the provision of affordable
housing.
Design, Scale and Massing
UDP Policy H1 states that new housing development should create a high quality
residential environment and be consistent with other UDP policies.
UDP Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to
respect the character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals
comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the
relationship to existing buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed
materials.
UDP Policy DES4 outlines that development, which adjoins public space, shall be
designed to have a strong and positive relationship with that space. In particular buildings
should clearly define the space around them, including streets through the continuity of
street frontages and building lines for example and the visual impact of car parking should
be minimised.
UDP Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and
layout. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
UDP Policy DES11 requires the submission of design statements with major applications
that demonstrate the delivery of high quality design solutions.
UDP Policy EN23 requires new development along any of the city's major road, rail and
water corridors to preserve or make a positive contribution to the corridor's environment
and appearance.
I consider the design of the proposed development to be a high quality, bespoke design
solution that successfully respects and enhances the character and appearance of the area
and also Manchester Road and the railway line to the rear as designated environmental
improvement corridors. I therefore have no objection in principle to the development on
design grounds, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. I will deal with each
element of the proposed design in more detail below.
Layout
The applicant submitted a detailed design and access statement in support of their
application in full accordance with UDP Policy DES11. The statement describes a number
of feasibility studies that the applicant undertook as part of the design appraisal process
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
before settling on the proposed layout. The need to fully respect and address the site
context in terms of strengthening established building lines, infilling gaps in the
townscape, defining primary frontages, minimising the visual impact of car parking and
protecting the amenity of existing occupiers were correctly identified as key design criteria
and have been successfully addressed.
The proposed layout addresses the irregular visual break in the streetscene by ensuring the
front elevations of the terraces are aligned with and strengthen the well-defined and
established building line on Manchester Road. Similarly, the rear terrace is considered to
have a comfortable relationship to surrounding dwellings. The position of the three
townhouses closest to 2 Banbury have been repositioned to mirror the alignment of
dwellings on Banbury Mews thus eliminating problems of an increased sense of enclosure
and loss of light highlighted in the neighbour objection received. The proportion and
location of outdoor greenspace is considered to successfully mirror and reinforce the areas
existing suburban character and ensures the amenity of neighbouring properties is
safeguarded in full accordance with the City Council’s adopted aspect distances. Locating
the parking court behind the primary street ensures the visual impact of surface car parking
is minimised. Similarly, the proposed layout ensures sufficient provision is made for
enclosed refuse and recycling bins and containers thus avoiding problems of bins littering
and cluttering the streetscene.
The concerns and objections raised by local residents about the space between their
property and the proposed townhouses are considered unsustainable given the amount of
space proposed is very similar to the space between existing properties on Banbury Mews.
Scale and Massing
Although the height of the proposed terraces are a storey higher than the two storey
properties to the east, they are approximately one metre lower than the three storey
apartment blocks to the west whilst the depth of the proposed buildings mirror that of the
smaller houses to the east. This relationship is considered an acceptable and appropriate
infill solution creating a relatively smooth townscape transition between the contrasting
scale and massing of adjacent dwellings whilst ensuring policy objectives relating to
housing types and sizes and higher densities in sustainable locations are met. The height
differential is also softened by the location of the access road and the two-storey terraced
housing on Manchester Road whilst the visual impact of the mass and width of the terraces
is broken up and softened by the insertion of projecting front gables and windows in
prominent side elevations. Soft landscaping around the periphery of the site will further
soften the visual impact of the proposed dwellings.
Given the above, I consider the scale and mass of the proposed buildings to be acceptable
and in accordance with UDP Policies H1, DES1 and DES7.
External Appearance and Materials
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
As mentioned in the description, all of the proposed townhouses are of a uniform
appearance with pitched roofs and are essentially a slightly larger, modern interpretation of
the traditional terraced houses found across the City. Rendered gables projecting from the
street facing elevations help animate, add depth and break up the mass of the terraces and
also provide space for enclosed bin stores. Non-street facing, south elevations are of a
more modern appearance incorporating full height glazing with sliding solar shading
panels and balconies in order to maximise the amount of natural light penetrating the
buildings. The palette of materials selected reflect those of surrounding buildings and are
dominated by red brick, render (three similar neutral colours) and slate coloured roof tiles
together with white aluminium framed doors and windows, powder coated steel balcony
railings and sliding solar panels of three similar neutral colours.
I consider the appearance of the proposed buildings to be a modern yet discreet
intervention that would add visual and architectural interest to the street scene and
therefore subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, I am satisfied the external
appearance of the proposed development would be in accordance with UDP Policies H1,
DES1, DES 4 and DES7.
Although the applicant has specified proposed materials in the Design and Access
Statement and on plans, I consider it necessary that a condition be attached to any consent
requiring the submission and written approval of materials samples, particularly in respect
of the primary brick and render facing materials to safeguard design quality.
Sustainable Design and Construction
UDP Policy ST14 requires major new development such as this to minimise greenhouse
gas emissions and their impact on the global environment.
The applicant has confirmed in writing that it is their intention to seek to acheive an
Eco-Homes rating of 'very good'. This is the stringent, industry standard, Building
Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Methodology tailored specifially for
new housing. I am satisfied that if this is acheived the requirements of UDP Policy ST14
will ultimately be met and that environmentally responsible, sustainable, resource efficient
buildings will be delivered. To ensure such a positive outcome for the purposes of this
planning application it is recommended that a condition be imposed to that effect.
Trees & Landscaping
UDP Policy EN12 states development that would have a detrimental impact on important
landscape features, including trees, will not normally be permitted unless replacements of
an equivalent amount and quality are provided.
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
The Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document contains further policies
and guidance in relation to tree protection that includes the requirement to replace trees that
are lost on a two for one basis.
UDP Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate
hard and soft landscaping provision. Where landscaping is required as part of a
development, it must be of a high quality, reflect and enhance the character of the area, not
detract from safety and security, form an integral part of the development, be easily
maintained, respect adjacent land uses and wherever possible make provision for the
creation of new wildlife habitats.
The applicant has submitted a Tree Survey and an indicative landscaping plan in support of
the application.
Eighteen of the twenty six trees on site are required to be felled to accommodate the
proposed development. The survey and proposals have been reviewed by the Council’s
consultant arboriculturalist who considers the proposals acceptable. He states that many of
the existing trees on site are self-seeded and largely focused at the rear of the site. Given
their quality and location they are not considered to be of significant public amenity value
or worthy of a tree preservation order. Trees marked for retention are clustered at the rear
of the site and would be located in the rear terrace’s back gardens.
The applicant is aware of the policy requirement to replace lost trees on a 2 for 1 basis and
is willing to accept a condition to that affect. The proposed layout plan indicates that soft
landscaping provision would be largely limited to private front and rear gardens with some
peripheral planting.
The access road, footpaths and central parking court would be hard landscaped with
traditional tarmacadam and kerb line stones with pedestrian access points defined by the
use of contrasting blocks or setts. Detailed designs of proposed boundary treatments have
not yet been provided but the indicative layout plan indicates they would comprise a
mixture of walls and railings and solid boundary fences of varying heights depending on
location and in accordance with Secured by Design principles.
As mentioned above, enclosed bin stores would be provided in the building’s external
envelope with additional space for recyclable material storage in front gardens allowing for
easy access. I am satisfied this is a satisfactory strategy for refuse and recyclables storage
and collection but recommend that further details of the proposed external bin stores be
submitted for approval at a later date.
I am satisfied that the proposed approach to landscaping highlighted in the tree survey and
plans will satisfy policy objectives providing conditions are attached to any consent
requiring the submission, written approval and implementation of a detailed landscaping
scheme to include the requirement to replace lost trees on a 2 for 1 basis, provide adequate
tree protection measures during construction and provide details of all surface treatments,
external lighting, boundary treatments and external bin stores.
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Amenity
UDP Policy H1 states that new housing development should provide a high quality
residential environment and an adequate level of amenity and be consistent with other UDP
policies.
UDP Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
UDP Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or
contribute towards a significant increase in pollution to the air, water or soil, or by reason
of noise, odour, artificial light or vibration, will not be permitted unless they include
mitigation measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development.
Privacy and Overlooking
The proposed development has been designed in full accordance with the Council’s
adopted privacy and aspect distances and therefore I have no objection to the application in
this regard. Nonetheless, it is considered necessary to attach a condition to any consent
requiring the windows in the side elevations of units 13 and 22, added at a later stage to
soften the scale and mass of the prominent side elevations, to be obscure glazed.
Loss of Sunlight and Daylight
Given the position and orientation of the building in relation to neighbouring properties
following revisions to the location of the three townhouses closest to 2 Banbury Mews, I
am satisfied that the proposed development would not result in an undue loss of daylight
and sunlight entering the habitable room windows of neighbouring properties. I therefore
have no objection to the application in this regard. In reference to the objection received, a
WC is not classed as a habitable room.
Light pollution
In order to protect existing and future residents from any adverse effects of light pollution
arising, it is considered necessary to attach a condition requiring the submission, written
approval and implementation of a detailed external lighting scheme.
Impact of Construction Phase
Given the proximity of neighbouring dwellings I consider it necessary to restrict hours of
construction to 08:00 am to 18:00 pm Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays
and it is recommended that a condition be imposed to that effect.
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
Noise
Given the site's proximity to a busy radial road traffic route, a railway line and industrial
uses the Strategic Director of Environmental Services has recommended that a condition
be attached to any consent requiring the submission, written approval and implementation
of a noise assessment and appropriate acoustic attenuation measures to protect the amenity
of future occupants. I also recommend that a condition be imposed restricting hours of
construction (see above). Subject to the imposition of the conditions detailed above, I have
no objection to the application on noise grounds.
Contaminated Land
UDP Policy EN16 states that development proposals on sites known or thought to be
contaminated will require the submission of a site assessment as part of any planning
application, identifying the nature and extent of the contamination involved, the risk it
poses to future users/occupiers of the site, and the practical remedial measures proposed to
adequately deal with the contamination.
UDP Policy EN18 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on surface and ground water in terms of quality, level or flow.
Given the site’s former use as a petrol filling station, the applicant submitted a number of
site investigation and contamination reports that detail the extent of contamination and the
remediation measures already undertaken on site. Both The Environment Agency and the
Strategic Director of Environmental Health have reviewed these documents and although
no in principle objections have been raised it is considered necessary to require the
submission and written approval of further studies, surveys and reports to address all
outstanding issues and concerns given the proposed sensitive residential use.
I therefore recommend that a condition be imposed accordingly. I am satisfied that,
subject to compliance with the condition, there would be no unacceptable detrimental
impact as a result of the existing ground conditions and I consider that the application
accords with the above policies.
Crime Prevention
UDP Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to
discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime. Further detailed policies and
guidance are provided in the adopted Design and Crime Supplementary Planning
Document.
In accordance, with the Design and Crime SPD, the Greater Manchester Police
Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) has reviewed the proposals and has raised no
objection in principle but wishes to see secure rear doors on townhouses at the front of the
site, secure but visually permeable rear boundary fencing to ensure car parking areas are
overlooked and secure boundary fencing around the perimeter of the site. In response, the
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
applicants have amended their proposals to address the points raised. Issues relating to the
provision of fences and gates within the site will be revisited when detailed landscaping are
submitted for approval. Given the above, I am satisfied that all reasonable and appropriate
crime prevention measures have been incorporated into scheme in accordance with policy
objectives.
Access and Parking Provision
UDP Policy A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled requires development proposals to
make adequate provision for safe and convenient access by the disabled, pedestrians and
cyclists through the protection and improvement of key routes.
UDP Policy A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network states that
development will not be permitted where it would compromise highway safety by virtue of
traffic generation and access.
UDP Policy A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle, and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
UDP Policy DES2 – Circulation and Movement requires the design and layout of new
development to be fully accessible to all people, maximise the movement of pedestrians
and cyclists to, through and around the site, enable pedestrians to navigate their way
through an area by providing appropriate views, vistas and transport links, enable safe,
direct and convenient access to public transport facilities and other local amenities and
minimise potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
The proposals have been reviewed by the Council’s Highway Engineers who have raised
no objection on highway safety grounds. I am therefore satisfied with the application in
this regard.
One dedicated parking space has been provided per unit (100%) and given the close
proximity of public infrastructure I consider this level of provision sufficient to meet the
needs of the development, in full accordance with UDP Policy A10. Nonetheless, given
the need to ensure sufficient parking provision is made for the future residents I consider it
necessary to attach a condition requiring the parking provision proposed to be made
available before any of the proposed townhouses are occupied and thereafter remain
available for use by future residents.
The provision of back gardens provides secure, off-street storage spaces for cycles.
In terms of access for people with disabilities, 18 of the 22 car spaces are of sufficient size
to be used by people with mobility impairments. All of the proposed houses would be built
to Lifetime Home standards with level entrance thresholds, minimum door and hallway
widths of 900mm and entrance levels WCs. Externally dropped kerbs would be installed to
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
provide access from the parking court and tactile paving would be provided at pedestrian
crossing points. I am therefore satisfied that the development would be accessible to all in
accordance with UDP Policies A2, A10 and DES2 in this regard.
Planning Obligations
UDP Policy H1 requires new housing development to make adequate provision for open
space and be consistent with other UDP policies.
UDP Policy H8 states that planning permission will only be granted where adequate and
appropriate provision is made for formal and informal open space and its maintenance over
a twenty year period. Such provision is required either as part of the development or
through an equivalent financial contribution to fund off-site provision. This policy refers
to access to recreational land and facilities standards set out in UDP Policy R2.
UDP Policy DEV5 states that development that would have an adverse impact on any
interests of acknowledged importance, or would result in a material increase in the need for
infrastructure, services, facilities and/or maintenance, will only be granted planning
permission subject to planning conditions or planning obligations that would ensure
adequate mitigation measures are put in place.
The adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document requires major
residential developments of 10 dwellings or more to ordinarily contribute towards the
provision, improvement and maintenance of open space and recreation facilities at a level
of £598 per bedspace, together with £1,500 per dwelling for public realm, infrastructure
and heritage, £150 per dwelling for construction training and £200 per dwelling for climate
change mitigation measures where developments do not achieve ‘very good’ or excellent
BREEAM ratings or equivalent.
The applicant has agreed in writing to enter into a S106 agreement to deliver commuted
sums for open space, environmental improvements, infrastructure and construction
training in full accordance with the requirements set out in the Planning Obligations SPD.
Given the scheme is required to achieve a ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ BREEAM rating and
that it is recommended that a condition be imposed to that affect, the scheme is exempt
from the climate change contribution. The total contribution agreed equates to a financial
contribution of £88,924. The Wardley Recreation Ground facing the site on the opposite
side of Manchester Road is considered an obvious and appropriate target for the use of the
sums secured.
The applicant has agreed, in writing, to meet this requirement. I therefore recommend that
a condition be attached to any consent to secure the agreed contribution. As such, I am
satisfied that the application complies with UDP Policies H1, H8 and DEV5 and the
policies contained with the adopted Planning Obligations SPD.
Other Issues
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
The residents of Banbury Mews have expressed concern at the height of the proposed sub
station necessary to enable residential development of the site. Sub stations of this size are
necessary development that do not require the express the consent of the local planning
authority.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has agreed to make financial contributions of £88,924 in full accordance
with the Planning Obligations SPD and associated UDP Policies.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the scheme accords with the policies of the Development
Plan and associated Supplementary Planning Documents. I do not consider that there are
any other materials planning considerations that outweigh this view. Subject to the
imposition of the following conditions, I recommend that the application be approved
accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve subject to the following conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer
and Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a commuted sum for
improvements to and maintenance of existing open space provision and public realm,
infrastructure and heritage improvements and training programmes for local construction
workers to the value of £88,924 in accordance with UDP Policy DEV5 and the policies
contained within the adopted Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.
The heads of terms of the agreement are as follows:
£52,624 for the provision and maintenance of open space;
£33,000 for the provision or improvement of public realm, infrastructure or heritage
features; and
£3,300 for training programmes for local construction workers.
Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning
with the date of this permission.
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
2. Notwithstanding the approved plans, development shall not commence unless and until
samples of the materials to be used on all external elevations, including the roof, of the
development have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The development shall be constructed using only the approved materials
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
3. The development hereby approved shall achieve a post-construction
Eco-Homes/Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method
(BREEAM) rating, or equivalent, of 'very good' or 'excellent', unless otherwise agreed
in writing by the local planning authority. A post-construction review certificate shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any of
the buildings hereby approved are first occupied, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the local planning authority.
4. A landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning
authority prior to the commencement of the development. The approved scheme shall
be implemented in full not later than 12 months from the date the buildings are first
occupied and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls,
fences, boundaries, external bin stores and surface treatments. Any trees removed will
be required to be replaced on site on a two for one basis unless otherwise agreed in
writing. 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.
5. 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 the 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.
6. Notwithstanding the approved plans, development shall not commence unless and until
an external lighting scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The approved scheme shall ensure that any lighting fixtures are
appropriately selected, aimed and powered to avoid adverse effects on residential
amenity. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the buildings
hereby approved being first occupied.
7. The proposed windows in the side elevations of the buildings hereby approved shall
contain only obscure glass.
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
8. The building works required to implement this development that are audible at the site
boundary shall only be carried out between the hours of: - 08:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs Mondays to Fridays; and
- 08:00 hrs to 13:00 hrs Saturdays; and
- not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
9. Before development commences, an assessment of noise likely to affect the application
site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
assessment should follow the guidelines set out in PPG24 - Planning and Noise for
assessing noise from the surrounding road network including Manchester Road, noise
from the nearby Wardley Industrial Estate, the adjacent railway line and any other local
noise sources of significance. The assessment shall identify all noise attenuation
measures necessary to reduce the noise impact on residential properties to acheive the
requirements of British Standard 8233 for internal noise levels. Consideration shall
also be given to acheiving adequate summer cooling and rapid ventilation. Once agreed
all identified noise control measures shall be implemented in full prior to first
occupation of the dwellings hereby approved.
10. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall:
a) 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 the wider environment;
and
b) Where necessary, submit a site investigation report to assess the risks to controlled
waters for the approval of the Local Planning Authority and in consultation with the
Environment Agency. This report should also address points c), d) and e) stated below
and must be agreed in consultation with The Environment Agency.
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.
If, during any works on site, contamination is suspected or found, or contamination is
caused, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified immediately. Where required, a
suitable risk assessment shall be carried out and/or any remedial action shall be carried
out in accordance to an agreed process and within agreed timescales in agreement with
the Local Planning Authority.
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
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.
11. The parking indicated on the approved plans shall be surfaced, demarcated and made
available for use prior to first occupation or first use of the buildings hereby approved.
The car parking shall thereafter remain available at all times for use by residents.
12. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the
undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and
Country Planning Act, 1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act, 1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning
Authority, and the Local Planning Authority has given its approval in writing. The
planning obligation will provide that commuted sums as required by Policy DEV5 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the policies contained within the
Planning Obligations SPD, will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for
improvements to and maintenance of existing open space provision and public realm,
infrastructure and heritage and training programmes for local construction workers.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity, appearance and character of the area in
accordance with Policy DES 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Reason: In the interests of resource conservation and environmental sustainability.
This is in accordance with Policy ST14 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan 2004-2016.
4. Reason - To ensure that a satisfactory landscaping scheme is carried out. This is in
accordance with Policies DES9, EN12, DES2, DES3 and DES4 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and the City of Salford Trees and Development
Supplementary Planning Document.
5. Reason - To ensure trees to be retained are adequately protected. This is in
accordance with Policy EN12 and DES9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan 2004-2016 and the City of Salford Trees and Development Supplementary
Planning Document.
6. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with
Policy DES7 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
7. Reason: To safeguard the privacy of neighbouring residents in accordance with Policy
DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
8. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of local residents. This is in accordance with Policy
EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
9. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of future residents in accordance with Policy DES7
and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
10. Reason: In the interests of public safety and to minimise negative environmental effects
in accordance with Policy EN16 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of vehicles on the
site in accordance with Policy A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
2004-2016.
12. Reason: To ensure that the development hereby approved is successful and sustainable
and that it meets the need for new and improved facilities and infrastructure it
generates. This is in accordance with Policy DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan 2004-2016.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. For the avoidance of doubt this permission relates to the following plans:
Site Location Plan (numbered 5845/S08 Rev E)
Proposed Site Plan (numbered 5845/S16 Rev A)
Proposed Elevations A and B (numbered 5845/S17 Rev A)
Proposed Elevations C, D and E (numbered 5845/S19 Rev A)
2. The Environmental Services Directorate can be contacted on 0161 737 0551 for further
discussions concerning the assessment of noise and subsequent mitigation measures at
this site.
APPLICATION No:
07/54610/COU
APPLICANT:
Miss J Cameron
LOCATION:
Unit 4 Fairhills Road Industrial Estate Tallow Way Irlam
M44 6RJ
89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from warehousing/offices to childrens soft
play warehouse
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an industrial unit located within the Fairhills Road Industrial
Estate on the south side of Tallow Way in Irlam. The site is bounded to the west by a Tesco
Superstore to the east and industrial uses to the surrounding areas.
The application is for the change of use of the site from warehousing/ offices to a children’s
soft play warehouse. The application site contains two car parks, the smaller of the two car
parks is already marked out for 18 car parking spaces, the larger of the two car parks is
currently used as a service yard for HGV’s it is proposed that this service yard could be
used for an additional 38 car parking spaces.
SITE HISTORY
Although not directly related to the site, this application is linked to two previous
applications by the applicant at Unit 5 Fairhills Road Industrial Estate:
An application for the change of use of the unit to a children’s play warehouse was refused
in September 2006 (06/53131/COU)
An application for the change of use of the unit to a children’s play warehouse was
withdrawn in June 2006 (Ref 06/52634/COU)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 15th May 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Unit 1, 2, 3 Tallow Way Fairhills Road Industrial Estate,
Tesco Stores Ltd, Fairhills Industrial Estate
Akzo Nobel Inks Ltd, Soapstone Way, Irlam
REPRESENTATIONS
90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
I have not received any letters of representation / objection in response to the planning
application publicity.
Councillor Mann has requested that Panel consider this application as he supports the
application as he feels the introduction of a children’s play warehouse would be beneficial
to the local community.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
E5 Development within established employment areas
A2 Cyclists. Pedestrians and the disabled
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the
development is acceptable and whether there would be sufficient car parking provided for
users of the proposed children’s play warehouse.
Policy E5 of the adopted UDP sets out criteria for when planning permission will be
granted for the reuse or redevelopment of sites or buildings within an established
employment area for non-employment uses. It states that planning permission will only be
granted where the development would not compromise the operating conditions of other
related employment uses, and where one or more of the following apply:
a) The developer can demonstrate there is no current or likely future demand for the site
for employment purposes
b) There is a strong case for rationalizing land uses or creating open space
c) The development would contribute to the implementation of an approved regeneration
strategy or plan for the area
d) The site is allocated for another use in the UDP.
It is not considered that the introduction of a children’s play area in this unit would
compromise the operating conditions of the other units within the industrial estate and
therefore I am satisfied that the application complies with the first part of policy E5.
The applicant has provided the following information in support of their application:
The current company occupies both units 3 and 4 Tallow way, employing a total of
22 staff. A portion of the company is being relocated to Luton (storage/
warehousing and distribution) and the design, sales, finance and administration
departments will still be located in unit 3.
91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
The indoor play centre is a much-needed facility within the Irlam and Cadishead
area and would attract visitors from the surrounding districts of Culcheth, Lymm,
Woolston, Eccles and Worsley.
According to a MIDAS search there are a total of 35 new units that will become
available within the Fairhills Road area. In addition there are a further 11 units
within the area that have been marketed for over 12 months.
A letter from a surveyors stating that the following marketing of the site has been
undertaken since December 2006, the erection of a marketing board, advertisement
in housing brochures and in the Manchester Commercial Property Register,
included on the MIDAS database and direct mailing. The surveyors have confirmed
that the only interest received to date in regards to the site is from the applicant.
The recently adopted Development Control Practice Note ‘Development within
Established Employment Areas’ Adopted by the City Council on 12th February 2007
clearly sets out what information is required by the applicant in order to demonstrate that
there is no current or future demand for the unit. The requirement under this adopted policy
note requires the applicant to undertake a full market appraisal by a qualified person. As a
minimum it is required that the appraisal consists of an assessment of the current
availability and demand for the type of employment land in question and an assessment of
the financial viability of re-using, refurbishing or redeveloping the site and/or buildings for
other employment purposes. The policy note sets out in detail the specific level of
information required to satisfy this criteria.
I am of the opinion that the evidence provided by the applicant is insufficient to satisfy
criterion a) of policy E5 and is therefore inadequate to allow an assessment to be made of
whether there is any current or future demand for the use of the site for employment
purposes. In the absence of such information and the applicants failure to satisfy any of the
other criteria which justify the redevelopment of sites or buildings within an established
employment area for non-employment uses there is a principled objection to the proposed
change of use on the basis that it would result in the loss of employment land, contrary to
policy E5 of the adopted UDP.
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists
and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. A total of 56 car
parking spaces are to be provided on site. Apendix C of the UDP identifies the maximum
car parking provision for this site to be 1 space per 25 sq m, this equates the a maximum of
60 car parking spaces, the proposed development is within the maximum limits. The
applicant has stated that it is anticipated that a total of 60 vehicles would visit the site in an
average day. It is considered that the car parking provision on the site is adequate.
Policy A2 requires that development proposals make adequate provision for safe and
convenient access by the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists. The application site is situated
within the middle of an industrial estate; it is therefore reasonable to expect heavy goods
vehicles to be travelling around the site. In addition, development is underway on a nearby
site for the creation of 34 new B1, B2 and B8 units which will increase the amount of traffic
92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
on Soapstone Way. It is considered that although the site is accessible by car, significant
pedestrian/ vehicle conflicts will be created by those trying to enter the site on foot or by
cycle. Therefore the proposed application is contrary to policy A2.
CONCLUSION
Overall, I do not consider that sufficient justification has been provided to clearly
demonstrate that there is no current or likely future demand for the site or building for
employment purposes. As such I consider that this proposal would be contrary to policy
E5 of the adopted UDP. In addition the proposed development would give rise to
significant pedestrian/ vehicle conflicts and therefore would be contrary to policy A2 of the
Adopted UDP
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in the loss of an employment site leading to a
material shortfall in the range of sites available for economic development. As such the
proposal would be contrary to Policy E5 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
2. The proposed pedestrian access to the site from the surrounding area would be
detrimental to the safety of pedestrians, thereby being contrary to policy A2 of the
Adopted City of Salford UDP.
APPLICATION No:
07/54606/FUL
APPLICANT:
Punch Taverns
LOCATION:
Blue Bell 41 Monton Green Eccles M30 9LL
PROPOSAL:
Erection of canopy to external eating/drinking area to the
front, construction of decking, fencing and planting area
to the front.
WARD:
Eccles
93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The proposal relates to The Bluebell Pub on Monton Green. To the west of the Bluebell
there are offices and to the east there are residential properties. There are also residential
properties to the front and rear of the premises. The site lies to the south of the Monton
Green Conservation Area.
The application proposes the erection of an external canopy to the front of the site. This
would be a goal post awning measuring 8 metres wide, 4 metres deep with a maximum
height of 2.3 metres.
SITE HISTORY
04/49180/ADV – Display of various externally illuminated and non-illuminated
advertising signs – Permitted.
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services advises that the canopy will also double as a
smoking shelter and is compliant with the legislation relating to these. There have been
previous noise complaints regarding the Blue Bell and there is a current file open.
Indications are that the current problem relates to noise from persons leaving the premises.
As there are existing facilities outside, it is difficult to argue against having external
shelters with those facilities. It is noted that the existence of the shelters may increase the
likelihood of noise from patrons however it will not be possible to effectively condition
noise from patrons. It would be feasible to require the management to undertake works or
demonstrate steps to minimise a reduction in amenity for the neighbouring residential
properties.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 9th May 2007.
A press notice was published on 24th May 2007.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
37-39 Monton Green
8 – 16 (evens) Monton Green
20 Monton Green
43 – 49 (odds) Monton Green
9 – 23 (odds) Mirfield Drive
214, 2A 214 Mirfield Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
94
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
6 letters of objection have been received in response to the application publicity. The
following concerns have been raised:
Countless complaints have already been made on the grounds of public disorder,
disturbance and licensing hours;
The proposed works are disproportionate to the needs of customers;
Garden areas connect to the seating area at the rear;
The canopied areas will be used as smoking sheds;
Increased noise and nuisance;
Shelters will provide an area in which those who have left the inside of the pub are
able to linger for an extended period;
Will bring about a significant extension to the pub’s capacity;
Proximity to the busy and potentially dangerous highway will pose safety risks;
A bus stop style canopy is suggested at the side; and
Residents have met with the licensee and 3 possible solutions are put forward, that
the awning at the front be retracted at 9:30, that no drinks will be allowed outside
after 9:30 and that no heaters be placed in the awning.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3: Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
EN17 – Pollution Control
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issues to be considered in the determination of this application are the design and
appearance of the proposal including its impact on the adjacent Conservation Area and the
impact on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.
Design and Appearance
Policy DES1 considers that development will be required to respond to its physical context,
respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, contribute towards
local identity and distinctiveness.
95
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
The Bluebell pub is located to the south of the Monton Green Conservation Area. A
decking area is proposed to the front elevation. The existing fence is constructed of brick
with black metal railings inserted within it. It is proposed that the railings be replaced with
timber. These measures would represent an improvement in terms of design and would
therefore not have an adverse impact on the streetscene.
The proposed canopy would have a single post at each end and a connecting rail to give a
‘goal post’ structure under the canopy and will be covered in fabric. I am of the opinion
that the proposed canopy would not have an adverse impact upon the street scene as it
would be of an appropriate size and scale for the building and as such it would not detract
from the character of the conservation area either. A condition would be attached to any
planning consent requiring the submission of materials to be used for the canopy roof to
ensure that they are of an appropriate quality and colour. A further condition would be
attached ensuring that details of the colour of the posts be submitted. The proposal
therefore accords with policy DES1 of the UDP.
Amenity
Policy EN17 relates to pollution control and considers that development proposals that
would be likely to cause or contribute towards a significant increase in pollution by way of
noise, will not be permitted. Policy DES7 considers that all new development will be
required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space,
sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. Development will not be permitted where it
would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments.
The established planning use of the premises is as a public house with existing outdoor
seating to both the front and rear. This application does not therefore relate to the use of the
premises or outdoor areas, it simply relates to the erection of a canopy to the front of the
premises. The original application included the erection of a canopy to the rear of the
premises but amended plans have been received omitting this element of the proposal.
A landscaped planting area is proposed to the front elevation adjacent to the boundary with
the nearest residential property 43 Monton Green, this would provide an element of
screening for this property. The canopy to the front would be situated 15 metres from the
nearest residential property 43 Monton Green to the east and as such would not have a
materially significant impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties. The proposal
therefore accords with policies DES7 and EN17 of the UDP.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The canopy proposed to the rear has been removed and no longer forms part of the
application.
96
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
CONCLUSION
The proposed canopy would not have an adverse impact upon the street scene, the
adjoining conservation area or on the residential amenity currently enjoyed by
neighbouring residents. It is therefore in accordance with policies DES1, DES7 and EN17
and consequently I recommend that the application be approved.
A press notice was not published until 24th May 2007 and the publicity period will not
expire until 14th June 2007. It is recommended that if the Panel are minded to approve this
application that decision is delegated to the Chair plus one other member of the Panel
unless objections are received from local residents that raise any new issues. If objections
are received that raise new issues the application will be brought back to the next meeting
of the Panel on 21 June 2007 to allow the consideration of any representations received
during the publicity 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 proposed canopy roof shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the
approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the colour of the canopy
posts hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The canopy posts shall be powder coated in the approved colour
prior to their installation.
4. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the proposed fence to the
front elevation shall be submitted. The fence shall thereafter be constructed before the
development is brought into use.
5. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the proposed decking
including details of the height shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The decking shall thereafter be constructed before the
development is brought into use.
6. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the proposed planting area
including the planting boxes and the shrubs to be planted shall be submitted to and
97
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The planting area shall thereafter
be constructed before the development is brought into use and shall be maintained to
the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990.
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 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. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission does not grant consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control
of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 for the advertisement(s) shown on the submitted
plan, nor does it imply that such consent would be forthcoming.
98
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
99
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th June 2007
100