PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
APPLICATION No:
05/50543/FUL
APPLICANT:
Miller Swinton Ltd _ Shaftesbury Square Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Car Park Chadwick Street/Swinton Hall Road Swinton
M27 2BH
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two retail units together with associated car
parking and service areas and new parking deck over
proposed retail buildings
WARD:
Swinton North
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This application was received 25th April 2005. It was first considered by the Planning and
Transportation Regulatory Panel in September 2005 where Panel were minded to approve
the application subject to the provision of a Section 106 legal agreement.
This application relates to the surface car park located to the rear of the Swinton Shopping
Centre. The proposal seeks to erect two retail units with deck car park above on the whole
of the site.
The Section 106 agreement has been drafted which requires the Council to enter into a
legal agreement with the developer (to enter into a working group with the City Council, to
review its car parking strategy every 6 months, to produce a Travel Plan, to seek to achieve
Secured by Design accreditation and to provide £40,000 towards public transport
mitigation measures and a residents car parking scheme). The ‘Heads of Terms’ for the
legal agreement are listed in full later in this report. The Council’s solicitor informs me
that the agreement has now been drafted and agreed by both parties. However, given the
passage of time, changes to the development plan and amendments to the scheme which
are detailed below, require that the application be reconsidered against prevailing policies
in order to determine whether the application is still acceptable and in accordance with
these new policies.
The Development Plan within Salford comprises the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan (adopted 21st July 2006) and RPG 13 (which became RSS and part of the development
plan on 28th September 2004).
At the time the application was considered by the Panel the proposal was assessed against
the, now replaced, UDP and the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Policy. Given
that the Unitary Development has since been adopted and given that since this time PPG 6
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
: Town Centres has been replaced by Planning Policy Statement 6 : Town Centres, it is
necessary to assess the changes to the application and to assess the proposal against the
prevailing policy framework. I will discuss the prevailing policy framework below and
other relevant material planning considerations in respect of retailing which have arisen
since Members were minded to approve the application in 2005.
PREVAILING PLANNING POLICY
Although Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6 has replaced Planning Policy Guidance note
(PPG) 6 with regard to Town Centres the thrust to the policy remains unchanged and that
given this site is within the defined town centre, I consider that the proposal is also
supported in principle by PPS6.
Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)
Policy EC8 Town Centres – Retail Leisure and Office Development is still the adopted
policy. The Inspectors report has now been published in relation to draft RSS, however I
do not consider that more weight should be given to emerging RSS policies although in this
instance the thrust of the policy has not changed.
Adopted Unitary Development Plan Policy (adopted 21st July 2006)
Adopted strategic policy ST9 removed a section of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
Plan Policy ST9 regarding specialist retail locations. This site is located within one of
Salford’s existing town centres which this policy would seek to protect and enhance. As
such I do not consider that the main elements of this policy have changed with regard to
this development within a defined town centre.
Policy S1 (Retail and Leisure Development Within Town and Neighbourhood Centres)
replaced policy S2 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan Policy. No changes
were made between each of these policies.
Policy S1 states that planning permission will be granted for retail and leisure development
within town centres and neighbourhood centres, provided that they would:
I. Be of a scale appropriate to the centre;
II. Be, or would be made to be, accessible by a choice of transport, including public
transport, walking and cycling;
III. Not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, or have an adverse impact
oh highway safety in terms of traffic generation, parking or servicing;
IV. Wherever practicable, make car parking facilities provided as part of the
development available to all short-stay visitors to the town centre;
V. Be of a high standard of design and support an attractive external environment; and
VI. Not have an unacceptable impact on environmental quality or residential amenity.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
The introduction of charging for the use of the existing car parks did not in itself require
planning consent. The introduction of charging on the town centre car parks has removed
long stay commuter parking from the shopping precinct car park. This is evident by the
amount of empty car parking provision throughout the working week and at weekends. It
is important to differentiate between the car parking requirements for this planning
proposal and charging mechanism that has resulted in the dispersal of car parking that does
not require planning consent.
The application was considered previously against draft policy A10 which sets out
maximum car parking provision. I consider that the adoption of the UDP has strengthened
this provision and that this proposal would still have an appropriate level of car parking
provision.
However, whilst I am still of the opinion that the proposed development would not give
rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, the developer has agreed to enter into legal
agreement with the City Council. The heads of terms of the agreement include the
developer reviewing its car parking strategy on a regular basis, working with the City
Council on issues relating to the town centre and to contribute £40,000 towards measures
to improve public transport. The agreement would also enable the City Council to utilise
£10,000 of these monies for a residents car parking scheme in the area. Any residents
parking scheme would be subject to a separate process.
The amendments to the scheme are discussed below. However, the amendments do not
result in any further reduction in the number of available car parking spaces since members
were minded to approve the application in September 2005.
Therefore, I still consider that the principle of this proposal accords with the prevailing
planning policies highlighted above.
AMENDMENTS
There are a number of minor changes to the scheme although the key elements of the
scheme remains unchanged. However, I have summarised the changes below:
Unit C1/C2 was previously divided into two units. The revised scheme would
provide one single unit at ground floor
The service bay on Granville Street has been relocated to Chadwick Street to the
east of the main entrance. This would result in the ground floor of the building
being set back. The car parking level above would remain unchanged. The service
bay to the west (to the rear of the job centre) would remain unchanged
The repositioning of the layby has resulted in the increase of floorspace and the car
park above to the east (Granville Street and the existing deck car park)
The unit on the deck car would be divided into two units with access from the car
park. A safe pedestrian route has been marked across the car park from the internal
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
lift located at the front of the scheme. The units located on the deck are to the north
of the site adjacent to Swinton Hall Road and would be increased in height by 1m
The sub station has been relocated within the envelope of the building
The canopy at first floor level over the public lift and stairs has been increased in
height by 300mm
The wall along the southern boundary of the consecrated ground has been adjusted
to simplify the building shape
The fire escape and access to bins stores has been located on the Chadwick Street
elevation in proximity to the relocated layby
The amendments to relocate the layby would result in a loss of 121sq m of
floorspace
Given that the proposals result in a slight reduction in the amount of retail floorspace and
having regard to the prevailing policy, I still consider that the principle of this proposal is
acceptable.
In terms of residential amenity the car parking at first floor level has not changed. The
units on the deck have increased in height by 1m. However, these units would be in excess
of 45m away from the closest residential property. The relocation of the service layby to
Chadwick Street would locate some of the servicing of this scheme closer to existing
residential properties, however, Chadwick Street is currently used for the servicing of the
existing retail units on the Parade. I have already attached a condition restricting the
delivery times to the scheme. Therefore, subject to the same conditions attached
previously, I do not consider that the amendments proposed would have any detrimental
impact upon residential amenity.
ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION
I have re-notified neighbouring residents and objectors to the original submission. I have
not received any further representations in response to this additional application publicity.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, subject to the conditions attached previously (amended to reflect prevailing
policy), I am still satisfied that the design and parking provision of the proposal is
acceptable in this instance. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
It is recommended 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.
My previous report is set out below:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the surface car park located to the rear of the Swinton Shopping
Centre. The car park currently provides for 120 car parking spaces. The site is bounded by
Swinton Hall Road to the north, Granville Street to the east which also provides access to
the adjoining two storey deck car park. Chadwick Street bounds the remaining two
boundaries and provides access to the rear of the retail unit on the precinct and the
residential maisonettes above on Chadwick Walk.
There is a 3.35m change in levels from Swinton Hall Road down to Chadwick Street. The
site boundary wraps around the consecrated land to the north western corner. Two external
staircases currently provide access to Chadwick Walk. One of which is provided from the
application site and the remainder is provided from the top deck of the adjoining car park.
The proposal seeks to erect two retail units with deck car park above on the whole of the
site. The proposal would utilise the change in levels to provide some of the retail provision
below the existing ground level of Swinton Hall Road. Ground floor access would be
taken from the Chadwick Street boundary. The two units would be accessible from
Chadwick Street and the car park above. One of the units would be two storey with the
second floor accessible from the car park deck. A total of 36,000 sq ft of floor space would
be provided.
Unit 19 The Parade would be removed to double the width of the existing pedestrian access
point.
The proposal would cut back into the site from the existing pedestrian access at Granville
Street. The Swinton Hall Road elevation would be half a storey lower that the existing
pavement. As such the proposal does not offer any active frontage to Swinton Hall Road
other than vehicles and pedestrian access to the proposal upper deck. The proposed upper
deck would be similar in levels to the existing neighbouring deck car park. Where the
proposal would meet the corner of Granville Road and Swinton Hall Road, closest the
traffic lights, the design would include a ‘dressed metal projecting cornice detail’ to
emphasis the corner position.
The height of the proposal, including the parapet wall around the upper deck car park,
would be 6.6m when measured from Granville Road. The proposed car park would be
located behind the parapet wall detail. Across Granville Road the proposal would maintain
9.6m to Chadwick Walk and 18.2m to the maisonettes themselves. The top of the parapet
wall would be 1.8m lower than the roof height of the maisonettes on Chadwick Walk. The
lift and staircase would be of a similar height to the roof height of those properties on
Chadwick Walk.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
The proposal would be situated 13m from the rear of the shops and office provision on
Station Road.
The existing car parks have recently introduced pay and display charging. Planning
permission is not required for the introduction of a charging regime nor does it form part of
this planning proposal.
SITE HISTORY
In 2004 an outline application for the siting, design and means of access to one two-storey
retail/leisure unit together with associated car parking, servicing and landscaping was
submitted to the Local Planning Authority and was subsequently withdrawn by the
applicant’s agent prior to determination (04/48568/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – no objection to the proposal subject to condition
relating to site investigations, noise, deliveries and lighting levels.
The Environment Agency – no objection, suggest drainage condition
United Utilities – no objection subjection drainage condition
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer – raises security concerns relating to car parking
(proposed and existing) and detailed security concerns. These are discussed later in this
report.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No records of any finds
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 103 (odd), Basement 80, 2 – 58 (even) and first floor 54 The Parade
Parade Pets, Kiosk 1-4 The Parade
Units 1-9 (con) Upper Parade
Suites B, E, F, G, H, B Parade Chambers
Swinton Leisure Centre, 1, 2 – 72 (even) Wellington Road
1 – 23 (con) Chadwick Walk
129 – 133, 135, 137, 139, 143, 145, 149 – 151, 153 – 157, Yates Wine Lodge, 161,
169, 171 – 175 The Bulls Head, Chorley Road
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
1 – 19 (odd), Flat5, 11A, 8 – 16 (even) 37 – 51 (odd), Swinton & Pendlebury
Labour Club, Matalan, Station Road
25, 33, 35, 50 – 58 (even), Aldi Food Stores, B&Q Retail Ltd, Morrisons, Swinton
Hall Road
44 White Swallows Road
116 Eccles Old Road
2 Normanby Street
22 Sherringham Drive
18 Hamilton Street
4 Paddison Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 8 letters and a petition containing 82 signatures of objection in response to
the planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Loss of privacy – units facing residential
Rubbish bins
Construction noise / disturbance
Loss of light
Concerns regarding footbridge
Pay and display
Car parking and access restricted
Loss of footfall
Loss of car parking compared to Council’s standards
Number of existing empty units
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
EC8 Town Centres – Retail Leisure and Office Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S6 Maintenance and Improvement of Town Centres
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design
and Crime, T13 Car parking, S1 Town centres, S2 Location of New
Retail Development, S6 Maintenance and Improvement of Town
Centres
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Other policies:
5th July 2007
DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and
Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle
and Motorcycle Parking in New Development, ST9 Retail, Leisure,
Social and Community Provision, ST11 Location of New
Development S2 Retail and Leisure Development Within Town and
Neighbourhood Centres
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the design, scale and
massing of the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the development plan and
whether the proposal is acceptable within this Town Centre Location.
Retail Provision
Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 6: Town Centres seeks to ensure that retail and leisure
uses are located within accessible locations. New retail development should demonstrate a
sequential approach to site selection.
Policy S1 of the adopted plan seeks to protect, maintain and improve Salford’s district
centres. Swinton is identified as one of the four district centres. Adopted policy S2 states
that the City Council will normally require all new retail development to be located in or
immediately adjacent to existing shopping centres. Adopted policy S6/2 states that the City
Council will encourage the refurbishment, maintenance and improvement of the district
centres.
Revised replacement plan policy ST9 is a strategic policy to ensure that site selection for
new development applies a sequential approach in accordance with PPS 6. Policy ST11
seeks to ensure that the sites are access by public transport. Policy S2 identifies a number
of criteria that should be taken into account when determining applications for retail
development.
Given that the site is located within Swinton’s primary shopping area, consistent with RSS
North West in Policy EC8: Town Centres, PPS 6 and adopted UDP S2, the proposal is not
required to demonstrate need, the resultant impact on the existing centres or accessibility
and owing to its location already complies with the sequential approach. I am also satisfied
that the proposal would be located on a brownfield site within an existing town centre.
In conclusion I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above.
Car Parking
Policy T13 of the adopted plan states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and
servicing is provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the
Council’s standards and that car parks are designed to a high standard, with particular
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
regard to access arrangements, surface materials, boundary treatments and security
measures.
Policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP 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.
Whilst the introduction of charging for the use of the existing car parks does not form the
basis of this application or require planning consent. It has removed long stay commuter
parking from the shopping precinct car park. It is important to differentiate between the car
parking requirements for this planning proposal and charging mechanism that has resulted
in the dispersal of car parking that does not require planning consent.
The car parks currently provide 508 car parking spaces. The surface car park presently
provides 120 spaces. The new car park would provide 64 number of spaces. The existing
upper and lower deck car park would be remarked to provide 22 additional spaces.
Therefore, the overall net loss of car parking spaces would be 25 spaces
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: seeks to reduce the reliance on private cars. The
Shopping Centre is located between the A6 and railway. As such I consider that the centre
is accessible by public transport. It is clear from the introduction of charging that the
existing car parks provide a sufficient level of parking provision for the whole of the
shopping centre.
I am conscious that a new management regime ha been introduced on the shopping precinct
car parking. The proposal would provide an adequate level of provision for the use and
users of the retail units in accordance with PPG13, PPS6 and revised policy A10. The
developer has also agreed to provide £40k towards public transport improvements and a
residents parking scheme, should it be considered that one is required. I consider that the
contributions proposed by the developer are sufficient to offset any impact that this
development would have on the locality.
I do not consider that additional provision would be justified and I consider that the
provision accords with the development plan framework in this instance.
Furthermore, through the use of a Section 106 agreement, the developer has agreed to
implement a Green Travel Plan for the Shopping Centre. The travel plan will be reviewed
on an annual basis.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding parking provision.
Design, Layout and Siting
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Adopted Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when
determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its
relationship to its surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision.
Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless
the Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the
development.
Adopted Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal
and property security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of
factors including the provision of security features.
Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to
respect the character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals
comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the
relationship to existing buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed
materials.
The proposal utilises the change in levels across the site. The main element of the proposal
would be 18.2m from the rear of those properties on Chadwick Walk, thus I consider that
the proposal would maintain more than the Councils normal separation distances. The
design of the proposal along the Chadwick Road elevation would include a panel cladding
system which, would conceal the car parking element from the maisonettes. As such I am
satisfied that the proposed car parking element would not result in a nuisance to residential
amenity by way of head lights shining into residential properties.
The removal of one of the existing units will enable the proposal to link with the existing
shopping area. I do not agree that this proposal would result in a loss of foot fall to parts of
the centre.
With regard to design, I consider this to be of an acceptable standard within the Town
Centre. Whilst the proposal would not provide a ‘shop frontage’ along the Swinton Hall
Road elevation due to the change in levels, it would continue to provide vehicular and
pedestrian access and link the wider uses of B&Q and Matalan with the existing town
centre. I have attached a condition requiring samples of the materials to be used for the
scheme to be agreed prior to the commencement of development to ensure that they are of
the highest quality.
In conclusion I am satisfied that the proposal complies with the polices highlighted above
with regard to design, layout and siting.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Design and Crime
Adopted Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal
and property security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of
factors including the provision of security features.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) has provided advice on the scheme. I have
provided the applicant’s agent a copy of the advice. The ALO has raised some concerns
regarding the level of car crime currently experienced on the car parks.
The introduction of charging will allow further investment into security for the existing and
proposed car parks as well as providing regular patrols. Moreover, through the use of a
Section 106 agreement, the developer has agreed to provide improvements to the existing
car parks to achieve Secured by Design Standards.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding crime.
Other Issues
Thirty spaces are available free of charge for the use of the market traders. These spaces
have not been formally designated but I am informed that they will be managed to ensure
that the market traders can continue to operate within the Shopping Centre.
I have also been informed by the owners of the centre that should the garages on the lower
car parking become available they will offered for rent to the residents of Chadwick Walk.
The existing footbridge would be renewed and would continue to match the existing
footbridge to the east.
Some disturbance will be experienced during the construction phase of the development
which can be controlled by legislation available to the Director of Environmental Services.
The Director has suggested the following hours during the construction phase; 8am until
6pm Mondays to Fridays and until 1pm on Saturdays and this will be attached by way of an
informative.
There are a number of vacancies within the shopping centre. I do not consider that the
number is significantly high at this time. The developer has indicated a significant level of
investment for the centre and it is hoped that these vacancies will be filled in the near
future. This proposal would enable a larger amount of floorspace to be provided to attract
new retailers into the centre.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
The developer has agree the following heads of terms which would form the basis of a
Section 106 agreement:
1) The Developer agrees to become a member of a ‘working group’ convened by the
City Council that will examine the provision and management (to include shared or
dual use) of public and private car parking in Swinton Town Centre. Membership
of the working group shall include attendance at meetings; provision of information
to assist in the compilation of base information and ongoing data collection;
contribution to the formulation of an agreed car parking management strategy and
ongoing review of this strategy.
2) The Developer will review the parking strategy of their private shoppers car park
every six months with the car park operator. The outcomes of the review shall be
reported to the ‘working group’.
3) The Developer shall be responsible for the production of a Travel Plan to ensure
that all future occupiers of the Town Centre units (existing and proposed) take all
reasonable steps to use alternative methods of travel to and from the centre other
than by car. The scope of the Travel Plan shall be agreed with the City Council and
shall include as a minimum the following measures; where possible local
recruitment; encouragement of the use of public transport; car sharing and parking
restraint. The Travel Plan shall be reviewed annually against the aims and
objectives of the Travel Plan to ensure its effective implementation. The developer
shall appoint a travel coordinator to deliver the Travel Plan and undertake annual
reviews and reporting and make appropriate adjustments in consultation with the
City Council.
4) The Developer shall achieve the standards of Secured by Design for the proposed
upper car park and introduce improvements for its existing car parks.
5) The Developer shall provide a financial contribution of £40k towards the
following;
a) Public transport and measures to mitigate congestion in the locality of
Swinton Shopping Centre.
b) Implementation and management of a resident’s car parking scheme in the
locality of Swinton Shopping Centre. (A maximum of £10k of the total contribution
will be for this item).
CONCLUSION
i.
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the design and parking provision of the
proposal is acceptable in this instance. I therefore recommend that the
application be approved.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended 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, and subject to the conditions below that the decision notice be issued
once the S106 Agreement has been completed and signed.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the
external appearance of the development have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site
investigation report for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the
nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and
shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under
the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human
health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building
structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors
including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of
the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within
the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the
site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall
be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion
Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance
with those agreed by the LPA.
4. Prior to first use of the car park a scheme detailing the proposed lighting shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting
scheme should be designed so as to avoid nuisance to residential accommodation in
close proximity and to provide a standard maintained illumination (LUX) of between 5
and 20 LUX.
5. Deliveries of goods to the site shall ONLY be permitted during the following times :
08.00 to 19.00 hours Monday to Saturday inclusive
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
No deliveries shall be permitted at any other time or on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
6. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway, all
surface water drainage from impermeable parking areas, roadways and hardstanding
for vehicles shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have
a capacity and details compatible with, the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass
through the interceptor
7. Prior to use of the development hereby approved the car parking layout as shown in
drawings PRESRB/1863/CP02, PRESRB/1863/CP04 and 661-043 Rev A shall be
marked out and made available at all times the premises are in use
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
4. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
5. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
6. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy EN19 of the
adopted Unitary Development Plan
7. Standard Reason R013B Use of parking areas
Note(s) for Applicant
1. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land
Condition, the applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection
Team in the Environment Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551).
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be
satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the
conditions precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and
appropriate action may be taken by the Council.
3. The applicant should contact the Commercial Services team for discussions and advice
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
on the layout, design and procedures undertaken by the proposed use prior to the
commencement of the business. Commercial Services can provide such advice
concerning matters relating to the Food Safety Act and the Health & Safety at Work etc
Act. For further advice please contact 0161 737 0551.
4. Guidance can be obtained from the Institute of Lighting Engineers which relates to
these matters (Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution).
5. The applicant is advised that construction works shall only be carried out between 8.00
am until 6.00 pm from Monday to Friday and between 8.00 am until 1.00 pm on
Saturdays. There shall be no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
APPLICATION No:
06/53857/FUL
APPLICANT:
Seddon Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent 2a Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 12 semi-detached dwellings together with
associated landscaping and car parking
WARD:
Worsley
At the Panel meeting on the 15th of March this application was deferred in order that the
applicant could look at ways to retain a greater number of trees on site.
In total there are 70 trees on the site. Of these 70 trees 54 are protected under the City of
Salford Tree Preservation Order Number 255, which protects the trees as a group. The
protected trees are summarised below –
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
4x Horse Chestnut
1x Birch
8x Pine
23x Holly
18x Sycamore
The other 16 trees on site include 4 Hollies, 1Birch, 1 Pine, 1 Ash, 1 Maple and 8 Apple.
The applicant has submitted a set of revised drawings that show the proposed access road
moved slightly to the north, away from the band of trees and towards the dwellings at plots
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
1 to 4. The applicants have also confirmed that they intend to utilise non-dig construction
methods within the root protection areas of the trees and they intend to use a ‘porous’ road
surface.
These revisions to the scheme and the applicants commitment to using non-dig
construction and porous road surfaces in combination with the applicants willingness to
carry out limited pruning to some of the trees including 3 of the apple trees, the maple
(1308) and 2 of the sycamores (1304 and 1305) means that a greater proportion of trees can
now be retained on site.
Previously it was proposed to fell 42 trees –
3 x scotts pine
15 x sycamore
4 x holly
4 x horse chestnut
1 x ash
1 x maple
14 x apple
A tree preservation order protected 23 of these trees –
2 x scotts pine
14 x sycamore
3 x holly
4 x horse chestnut
It is now intended to fell 14 trees - 3 Hollies, 8 Sycamore, 2 Horse Chestnuts and 1x Ash.
A Tree Preservation Order protects eleven of the trees that would be felled – 2 Hollies, 7
Sycamores and 2 Horse Chestnuts.
The protected trees that are proposed for removal have been inspected by the our consultant
arboricultural who does not have any objections to the felling of the 11 TPO’d trees for the
following reasons –
Holly (01255) – This tree is dead and therefore it is exempt from the TPO
Holly (01261)- This is a small, suppressed tree. Its loss would have a minimal
effect of the group.
Sycamore (01269) This tree has an asymmetric, suppressed crown shape. And
damage to the lower trunk. It is a low quality specimen, with a short projected life
span. It should not therefore constrain the development.
Sycamore (01289) This tree is poorly formed. Its loss would have a minimal effect
on the amenity value of the group.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Sycamore (1295) This is a suppressed tree with an asymmetric crown shape. Its
loss would have a minimal impact on the value of the group.
Sycamore (1296) – This tree has an unbalanced, asymmetrical crown shape and
damage to base of trunk. It is acceptable to loose this tree as the damage to the tree
has reduced it lifespan. It should not therefore constrain the development.
Horse Chestnut (1297)– This tree has an unbalanced, asymmetrical crown shape.
It is also a suppressed tree due to competition for light. Its loss will therefore have a
minimal effect on the value of the amenity.
Sycamore (1298) – Sycamore – This tree has a spindly, contorted form, due to
competition for light. It is also exhibiting signs of crown dieback. As a result it has
a short life expectancy. It should not therefore constrain the development.
Horse Chestnut (1299) – Horse Chestnut –This tree has an asymmetrical crown
shape. There has been damage to trunk that has reduced the life expectancy of this
tree. It should not therefore constrain the development.
Sycamore (1300)– Sycamore – This tree has co-dominant leaders with a weak
union. It therefore has a reduced life expectancy. It should not therefore constrain
the development.
Sycamore (1301) – Sycamore – This tree is growing in close proximity to the
adjacent wall, posing a potential problem for the walls stability. The tree also has
damage to the lower trunk. As a result it has a reduced life expectancy. It should not
therefore constrain the development.
With regards to the three other trees that would be felled – the holly (1256), the ash (1300a)
and the sycamore (1291) – these where omitted from the Tree Preservation Order as a
result of their poor form or poor health. Since the making of the Tree Preservation order the
health and/or form of these trees has not improved sufficiently to warrant their protection.
Our arboricultural consultant has recommended that the protected trees are replaced on a 2
for 1 basis. The applicant is willing to replant on a 2 for 1 basis. Our arboricultural
consultant has expressed some concern that it may not be possible to accommodate the 22
trees on site. If it is not possible to replace the trees on site then off site planting will be
agreed. This is acceptable to the applicant.
It is worthy of note that under the previous extant permission to erect four dwelling and 8
flats on the site 10 protected trees were allowed to be felled (ref 02/44646/FUL). Those
trees are as follows –
3 hollies – 1285, 1286 and 1287
5 sycamores – 1289, 1295, 1296, 1298 and 1300
2 horse chestnuts – 1297 and 1299.
The applicant has also revisited the design of the proposed dwellings. They have added
bays with pitched roofs to the front elevation of the properties at plots 1 to 4 and the design
of the properties garage doors to these properties has also been modified in order to add
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
interest and improve the visual appearance of these dwellings. Similarly the design of the
dwellings at plots 5 to 12 has been revised via the addition of a brick dental course. Glazing
bars to the windows and doors have been added to all the proposed dwellings, as have
additional brickwork detailing above and below some of the windows.
Materials samples have also been submitted for approval. It is proposed to use Terrca
Stockbury Multi facing brick with contrasting smooth blue brick to all external openings
(soldier above, header course below) on the dwellings at plots 1 to 4 and Terrca
Ruddington Red Multi brick with contrasting buff/cream brick to all external openings
(soldier above, header course below) for the dwellings at plots 5 to 12. I am satisfied that
these are acceptable for use in the development as they accord with those of surrounding
buildings and that they are of a suitably high quality. I have not been provided with a
sample of the buff/cream brick proposed and therefore to ensure that it too is of suitability
high standard I recommend that a condition requiring samples of materials is still attached
to any approval.
With regards to comments on the revised proposals an additional 5 letters of objection have
been received including one from the Moorside Road Residents Association. The
following additional issues have been raised –
The development is out of character with the surrounding area.
The report below addresses this objection.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This report was written for the Panel Meeting held on the 15th of March 2007.
Since writing this report an additional neighbour objection letter has been received. The
writer of this letter did not raise any additional concerns from those outlined below.
I have also received a letter from Cllr Ian MacDonald who shares the concerns of the
Moorside Road Residents Association, which are outlined below.
Given the dense tree cover on site and the potential the trees have to provide
roosts/breeding sites for bats Members requested that the applicants carry out a bat survey
prior to the determination of the application. A survey was conducted by and the Greater
Manchester Ecological Unit (GMEU) were consulted on the findings of the survey. In their
opinion the survey has been conducted by suitably qualified persons and to an appropriate
standard. They state that February is an appropriate time of year to assess trees for their
potential to be used as bat roosts since deciduous trees will not be in leaf and trunks and
branches are easier to inspect for holes, cracks, crevices and loose bark. The report has
found no evidence of roosting bats in trees on the site, but has found that three of the trees
that will be lost to the development have limited potential to be used by bats, however this
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
use is likely to be occasional use by single bats or small numbers of bats. These trees are the
apple tree that would be located within the rear garden of plot1 and two horse chestnuts,
T01297 and T01302. In these circumstances the GMEU would not consider that the
conservation status of bats will be affected by the development, and therefore they do not
have any objection to the planning application on nature conservation grounds. The GMEU
and do however support the recommendations of the survey which states that the trees
identified as having the potential to support bats are re-inspected immediately prior to
felling, as a precaution to ensure that no bats are present. Should bats be found during
re-inspection then work should cease immediately and advice sought from a suitably
qualified bat worker. They also states that compensation should be sought for the loss of
any bat roosting potential caused by the felling of suitable trees by requiring some new tree
planting and/or requiring the erection of artificial roosting habitat (bat boxes) on remaining
trees or new buildings. The landscaping condition provides for the replanting of trees and I
have attached conditions that ensure that the proposed development is carried out in
accordance with the submitted bat survey which makes the same recommendations as
those made by the GMEU.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At the meeting of the panel held on the 15th February 2007 consideration of this application
was DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND
TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 0.4-hectare site located to the rear of The Sides Medical Centre
and 2A Moorside Road, a two-storey office block. The site is a brownfield site upon which
a number of mature trees are sited, 54 of which are protected by Tree Preservation Order
Number 255. Access to the site is via Moorside Road. The site slopes away from north to
south by approximately 2.35m and from east to west by approximately 1.9m.
The site is surrounded by residential properties to the north, south and east and by the
medical centre and the office block to the west.
It is proposed to erect 12 two storey semi-detached dwellings, a series of four dwellings
running west to east and a series of eight running north to south. The existing access road
would be extended in order to allow vehicular access to the proposed units. A total of 18
car parking spaces would be provided on site. In order to accommodate the development it
is proposed to fell 24 protected trees and 19 non-protected trees.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
SITE HISTORY
An application for the erection of a terrace of four town houses and two, two-storey
buildings comprising of four flats and seven garages, together with associated landscaping,
car parking was approved in December 2002 (ref 02/44646/FUL).
PUBLICITY
A press notices was published on the 7th of December 2006.
A site notice was posted on the 20th of December 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
15 to 59 (odd) Ashley Drive
6 to 12 (even) Moorside Rd
2A Moorside Road
17A, 17B to 33 (odd) Moorside Road
The Sides Medical Centre, Moorside Rd
The Limes, Moorfield Close
1 to 15 (odd) Moorfield Close
1A, 3A and 5A Norwood Drive
2 and 4 Norwood Drive
CONSULTATIONS –
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections
United Utilities – No objections
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 7 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning
application publicity. The following issues have been raised –
Loss of light
Loss of privacy
Loss of trees
Impact on local wildlife including bats
Noise and disturbance during the construction period
Increased noise and air pollution as a result of the increased traffic flow to the site.
The materials proposed would not respect the surrounding area
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
The design of the dwellings is basic
Loss of view
The proposal involves the loss of a Greenfield site
Devaluation of property
Concerns over drainage and possible flooding of gardens
The proposals represent an overdevelopment of the site.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other Policies - DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 Quality in New Development
SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding
Areas
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
The following policies of the Draft RSS – The North West Plan (March 2006) are
considered to be of relevance:
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
DES11 – Design Statements
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
ST11 - Location of New Development
H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
EN13 – Protected Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the
proposed development is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on
residential amenity; whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; whether the loss
of trees is acceptable; and whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Principle
Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land. This is
re-iterated in Draft Policy DP1.
Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city’s housing stock is
able to meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford.
Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse
and conversion of existing buildings being the preferred location of development, followed
by previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
The Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing states that in this area, West Salford, the
majority of units within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than
apartments.
The proposed development site is a Brownfield site and consequently the proposals to
redevelop the site are in accordance with Policy ST11.
With regards to Policy H1 of the adopted UDP and the Council’s Planning Guidance on
Housing and the mix of units proposed the development would provide twelve 3
bedroomed semi-detached houses. The proposed development is therefore in accordance
with Policy H1 and the Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing, as it would make a
positive contribution towards the ability of the city’s housing stock to meet the housing
requirements of all groups within Salford.
I also consider that the proposed development density of 30 dwellings per hectare to be
acceptable in this location.
Design –
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with
this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing
buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy 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
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
and visual appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context and how the
proposal meets the Council’s design objectives and policies.
It is proposed to erect 2 different dwelling types on site, type A and type B. The type A
dwellings would be two storeys high measuring 4.8m at the eaves and 7m at the ridge. The
proposed type B dwellings would measure 4.8m to the eaves and 7.5m to the ridge. Both
sets of properties would be gable-ended buildings. I am of the opinion that the design, scale
and massing of the proposed dwellings would respect the that of other properties in the
vicinity of the site, including those on Ashley Drive, which are all two storeys in height.
Consequently I am of the opinion that the proposed development would harmonise with its
surroundings.
The design of the buildings is of an acceptable standard and in accordance with Policy
DES11 a design statement has been submitted with the application.
The proposed materials would consist of brick, UPVC windows and roofing tiles. I have
attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and
approved prior to the commencement of development to ensure that they accord with those
of surrounding buildings and that they are of a suitably high quality.
In the interests of sustainable development I have attached a condition requiring a detailing
all the following matters including; sustainable construction techniques; natural ventilation
techniques; sustainable urban drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar heat gain and
use of renewable energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability matters
scheme to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact
upon the visual amenity of the area in accordance with policies DES2 and DES11 of the
adopted UDP.
Amenity Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of
the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
At their closest the proposed dwellings at plots 1 to 4 which run east west across the site,
along the northern boundary of the site would be located 21m from the rear elevation of the
properties at 45 to 51 Ashley Drive. A 3m high (approx) wall marks the boundary between
the properties at 45 to 51 Ashley Drive and the application site. I am therefore of the
opinion that the proposed dwellings at plots 1 to 4 would not have an adverse impact upon
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
the residential amenity the occupants of the properties at 45 to 51 Ashley Drive can
reasonably expect to enjoy.
The blank gable end of the property at plot 5 would be located 16.8m from the common
boundary with the properties at 41 and 43 Ashley Drive. The introduction of this property
would not therefore have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of
this property currently enjoy.
The properties at plots 5 to 12 that run north south across the site, along the common
boundary with the properties at 17 to 31 (odd) Ashley Drive would be located at least
25.6m from the rear elevation of these properties. Adequate separation would therefore be
maintained between facing habitable room windows and adequate separation would be
maintained to prevent any significant overshadowing of garden areas occurring.
The blank gable end of the property at plot 12 would be located 1.5m from the common
boundary with The Limes. There would be approx. 18m between the blank gable of the
proposed property and the habitable room windows contained within The Limes.
Consequently I am of the opinion that adequate separation would be maintained to ensure
that the dwelling at plot 12 would not form an overbearing structure. This level of
separation would also ensure that the occupants of The Limes do not experience a
significant reduction in the level of light received in their habitable rooms. The proposed
dwelling would run alongside an area of open space at The Limes. This area is however
densely populated by trees and consequently already well shaded. As a result I do not have
any concerns over the situation of the dwelling at plot 12 and its relationship with this area
of open space.
The land to the west of the site is not used for residential purposes.
Policy DES7 also requires all new developments to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity.
There would be adequate separation within the site to ensure that future occupants of the
proposed dwellings enjoy a satisfactory level of amenity.
Each of the proposed dwellings would be provided with a reasonable amount of useable
amenity space in the form of a rear garden.
Car Parking Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists
and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
One parking space would be provided for each of the proposed dwellings and there would
be 6 visitor spaces. I am satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable. The
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
proposed car parking and access would be laid out in such a way that I do not have any
objections to the proposed development on highway safety grounds as I do not consider
that there would be any long term issues with the increased vehicular traffic flow to and in
the vicinity of the site.
Trees Policy EN13 of the adopted UDP relates to protected trees. It states that development that
will result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, protected trees will not be permitted.
The proposed development would result in the loss of 26 protected trees. Of the 26
protected trees that would be felled 5 need to be felled for arboricultural management
reasons or because any value these trees currently have would be lost within 10 years.
These trees are 01255 (holly) 01275 (sycamore), 01297 (Horse Chestnut), 01301
(sycamore) and 01303 (holly).
11 of the other protected trees that would be felled have been classified by BS5837 as trees
that are of a low quality and therefore make a limited contribution to the amenity of the area
(grade c).
The remaining 8 TPO’d trees that would be removed have not been assessed individually,
as they only make a contribution to the visual amenity of the area in a group. It is not
therefore possible to give these trees an individual grading. Initial inspections outlined in
the arboricultural statement have however indicated that 5 of these trees are poor
specimens and consequently it is highly likely that they would be classified under BS5837
as grade c trees. The other 3 trees that would be felled are not referred to in the statement
and therefore such a judgement cannot be made. However it should be noted that the
removal of these trees would allow for the construction of an access road in a location that
allows the majority of trees within the group to be retained. The removal of these trees
would also allow for a substantial level of replanting.
In addition to felling these trees it is proposed to fell 20 other trees - 14 apple trees running
along the northern boundary of the site, one scotts pine (01251), one holly (01256), one
silver birch (01288), one sycamore (02191), one ash (01300A) and one maple (01308).
According to the BS5837 classification all these trees, with the exception of the sycamore
(01291) and the maple (01308) which are trees of a low quality, need to be felled for
arboricultural management reasons or because any value these trees currently have would
be lost within 10 years.
The Councils consultant arborist has inspected the trees and he is of the opinion that as the
majority of the trees on site make a limited contribution to the visual amenity of the wider
area. Consequently he does not have any objections to the proposed tree felling.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
In order to protect the trees that would remain on site during the construction period I have
attached a condition requiring protective fencing to be erected around the trees. In addition
to this a further level of protection needs to be afforded to the trees located within close
proximity of the proposed parking outside plots 7 to 12. I have therefore attached a
condition requiring a scheme to be submitted that shows how these spaces will be
constructed using a non-dig construction method.
In order to ensure that the visual amenity of the area is not eroded by the proposed
development I have attached a condition that requires a landscaping scheme that provides
for significant tree planting being submitted and approved.
With regards to the impact that the remaining trees would have upon future occupants of
the proposed dwellings I am satisfied that the proposed development complies with Policy
TD3 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on trees as it would not contain
any habitable room windows within 3.6m of any point of the crowns of the trees that would
remain on site.
Open Space –
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant is aware that a £25,920 contribution
towards the provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity is required.
Other Issues –
With regards to concerns over noise and disruption during the construction phase a
condition has been attached that requires a considerate contractors management plan to be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of
development. This should ensure that residents do not experience significant levels of
noise and disturbance during the construction phase.
Devaluation of property is not a material planning consideration, nor is loss of view.
Concerns have been expressed over drainage and the potential for flooding. In order to
reduce the risk of flooding, in accordance with Policy EN19 of the adopted UDP, I have
attached a condition that requires a scheme for foul and surface water drainage to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
commencement of development. I have also attached a condition that requires finished
floor levels to be 300mm above the adjacent road level.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
A number of mature trees currently occupy the application site. It is possible that these
trees could be used by bats as locations to hibernate or roost. In order to ensure the
protection of a protected species in accordance with Policy EN10 I have therefore attached
a condition that requires a bat survey to be carried out and submitted and approved prior to
the commencement of development.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential
purposes is acceptable. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant
policies of the Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this
finding. I therefore recommend that the application be approved
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details
of the materials for the walls and roof of the development shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out
using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
3. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a preliminary
risk assessment on the potential for on site contamination has been undertaken and
agreed by the Local Planning Authority. If the preliminary risk assessment identifies
potential contamination a detailed intrusive site investigation then prior to the
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 contamination and ground gases on the site and its
implications on the risk to human health and controlled water receptors as defined
under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA. The investigation shall also
address the health and safety of the site workers, also nearby persons, building
structures and services, landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the
environmental pollution in ground water. The sampling and analytical strategy shall be
approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the survey, and
recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be
implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site. A site completion report
including details of post remediation ground conditions for the site shall be completed
and submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the site.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
4. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is
started. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12months 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.
5. The development shall not be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing all the
following matters including; sustainable construction techniques; natural ventilation
techniques; sustainable urban drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar heat gain
and use of renewable energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability
matters have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling the approved scheme shall be
installed and shall thereafter be retained and maintained unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority the finished floor
levels of the buildings hereby approved shall be a minimum of 300mm above the
adjacent road level.
7. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the
recommendations contained within the Bat Survey carried out by Baker Shepherd
Gillespie dated March 2007.
8. Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted the 16 car parking spaces
shown in the approved plan (311/01 Drawing 01 Revision i) shall be constructed and
marked out within the curtilage of the site. The spaces shall be made available for
future occupants of the development hereby approved at all times whilst the premises
are in use.
9. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
10. Prior to the commencement of development an Arboricultural Method Statement that
details how the access road and the 12 proposed car parking spaces opposite plots 7 to
12 shall be constructed without damaging the trees shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved scheme.
11. 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
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
and Country Planning Act, 1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning
Authority, and the Local Planning Authority has given its approval in writing. The
planning obligation will provide that a commuted sum as required by policy H8 of the
City of Salford Adopted UDP and the Salford Greenspace Strategy 2006 will be paid to
the Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes.
12. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the proposed foul and
surface water drainage for the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and maintained in
accordance with the approved scheme.
13. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, during the first
available planting season following the felling of the 11 trees hereby granted consent,
they shall be replaced by 22 standard trees in accordance with British Standard
3936:Part 1:1992 (Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1: Trees and Shrubs) and which
shall have a clear stem height from the ground of 1.8m, a minimum overall height from
the ground of 2.75m, a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of 8 cm.
Full details of the species and location of the replacement trees shall submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of
development.
14. If the replacement trees die or are removed within 5 years of planting, they shall be
replaced within 12 months of removal or death to the satisfaction of the The Local
Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. In order to reduce pollution in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
6. In order to reduce flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the adopted UDP.
7. In order to ensure the protection of bats in accordance with Policy EN10 of the City of
Salford UDP.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
8. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
9. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
10. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
11. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation
space for future occupiers in accordance with policy H8 of the City of Salford Adopted
UDP.
12. In order to reduce flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the adopted UDP.
13. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
14. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. In order to satisfy condition 10 a non-dig method of construction should be utilised.
APPLICATION No:
06/53873/TPO
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs C Blakesley
LOCATION:
Brindley Lodge 249 Worsley Road Swinton M27 0YL
PROPOSAL:
Fell one beech (T1) and one rowan. Cut back as far as
possible three lime (T3), (T4) and (T5) and one london
plane (T6).
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
An application was received in November 2006 to fell one beech tree (T1) and one rowan
(T2) and to ‘cut back as far as possible’ three lime (T3), (T4) and (T5) and one london
plane (T6). Our Arboricultural Consultant has inspected the trees against the group TPO
and found some discrepancies in the schedule. This lead to the decision to review the TPO
and make additional recommendations to protect a rowan and a London plane and the
existing protected trees – TPO354 2007. The new TPO took effect on 29th January 2007. A
decision could not be made on the application until the TPO was in place. The application
was due to be determined by 3rd January 2007. The applicant lodged an appeal against
non-determination. The impact of lodging of an appeal means that the council, as local
planning authority cannot now determine this application. The Secretary Of State, via the
Local Government Office, now determines this application. This report therefore seeks the
Panel’s confirmation that if it were able to determine this application, it would agree with
the recommendation as stated.
SITE HISTORY
In October 1993 an application was received to 10% crown thin eight trees. This
application was granted permission on 3rd march 1994 (Planning application ref:
93/31858/TPO)
In September 2003 an application was received to crown thin by 10% 1 beech and 1 sorbus.
Crown thin by 10% and crown raise to 16 foot 2 lime trees. This application was granted
permission on 24th November 2003. (Planning application Ref:03/46875/TPO)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
216, 218, 220, 220A Worsley Bowling Club 222 Worsley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of objection in response to this planning application
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: EN13-Protected Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Policy EN13 states that The Council will encourage the conservation of woodland by
supporting the retention of trees, woods, copses and hedgerows.
The reasons given by the applicant for the felling of the beech tree (T1) and the rowan tree
(T2) are that the roots are raising flags and possibly damaging foundations; the trees are
blocking light from flats at Brindley Lodge and may be causing damp.
Our Arborist has inspected the trees and is of the opinion that no demonstrable evidence
has been provided to justify the removal of the trees. The applicant has not provided any
pictures or reports which conclude the trees are causing damp, damaging foundations or
raising the flags.
The reason given by the applicant for the pruning of the two lime trees (T3) and (T4) is that
they block light from the street light and the lime tree (T5) and the London plane (T6)
overhang the footpath. The proposed works in the application were to ‘prune back as far as
possible’, which are vague and could lead to excessive pruning.
Our Arborist assessed the trees and recommended works that would be appropriate for the
trees, these are as follows:
Lime (T3) – Remove the leaning limb on the eastern side of the tree, which is
growing under the street light
Lime (T4) – No action required
Lime (T5) – Crown raise over the footpath to a height of 3m
London Plane (T6) Crown raise over the footpath to a height of 3m
These works would be acceptable from an arboricultural perspective and would not harm
the amenity value of the trees. However these works cannot now be agreed due to the
lodging of the appeal.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that there is no evidence to justify the felling of the beech tree (T1) and
the rowan tree (T2) and their loss would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the
visual amenity of the area .It may be possible to carry out some pruning works as outlined,
however the works proposed by the applicant are vague and ambiguous and could lead to
inappropriate and excessive pruning which would be detrimental to the health and amenity
of the tree and consequently the amenity of the area, contrary to Policy EN13 of the City Of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
That the Panel resolve to agree and support the reasons outlined below and that these
reasons form the Council’s case at appeal.
(Reasons)
1. No demonstrable evidence has been provided to justify the felling of the beech (T1) and
the rowan (T2), the loss of which would be detrimental to the amenity of the area,
contrary to Policy EN13 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The lack of clarity as to the extent of pruning to the three lime (T3), (T4) and (T5) and
the london plane (T6) could lead to inappropriate disfigurment with a detrimental
impact on the amenity of the area contrary to Policy EN13 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
06/53712/FUL
APPLICANT:
Concept Developments (UK) Ltd
LOCATION:
61 Farm Lane Worsley M28 2PG
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of five
dwellings together with associated car parking and
alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
This application relates to a site on Farm Lane in Worsley which presently has a large
bungalow on it. The surrounding area is predominantly residential comprising both
detached and semi-detached properties. The site is bounded on three sides by gardens of
neighbouring properties and to the west is the M60 motorway. The bungalow is to be
replaced with five houses comprising of 3 no. bed houses, two pairs of semi detached and
one detached property. Each dwelling would have a rear garden and a communal car park
is provided to the east of the site which provides parking for seven cars.
SITE HISTORY
06/53317/FUL - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of five dwelling houses
together with associated car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access was
withdrawn due to the need for an acoustic report.
CONSULTATIONS
Highways Agency – No objections in terms of impact on the motorway. No development
can encroach on Highways Agency land and it has requested two conditions regarding the
embankment and the drainage should be attached to any permission.
Strategic Director of Environmental Services –
The submitted acoustic report is inadequate in terms of the duration of the measurement
period. However based on the submitted information “The survey readings at the closest
point to the motorway are at the top of Noise Exposure Category (NEC) C or in band D.
Planning Policy Guidance 24 states that housing development in Band C ‘planning should
not normally be granted’ and in Band D permissions should normally be refused.” In
addition BS8233 sets two levels of standards for bedrooms as follows: ‘good’ less than
30dBLA and ‘reasonable’ less than 35dBLA. The proposed measures that include non
opening windows and forced mechanical ventilation is recommended and these do not
achieve the ‘good’ standard and it is therefore likely some sleep disturbance may occur to
future occupants. However without full details of the proposed ventilation the impact
cannot be assessed. There are no protection measures for the outdoor areas and as such
noise levels will be significantly above the recommended guidelines for BS8233:1999
which indicate external levels of 55dB as a maximum. This site is in the 65-75dB range significantly above.
Comments were also provided on Air Quality issues “The site is located in an air quality
management area (AQMA) for nitrogen dioxide as levels exceeded the annual average
objective. Monitoring results from the air quality station located approx 17 m from the
motorway indicate that the annual average is exceeded by approximately 65% above the air
quality standard set in regulations. There are also years when the hourly standard is close
to or above the standard. With regard to particulate matter the annual standard may be
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
exceeded while there have been years when the short term daily standard has been
exceeded.
The proposed site was modelled as part of the local authority’s duties under the
Environment Act (1995) to identify areas where air quality is likely to exceed the UK air
quality regulations. This resulted in the declaration of the AQMA. It also indicates that this
development is in an area where the annual average particulate matter might also be
exceeded, possibly triggering the declaration of a new air quality management area, if
exposure exists. If this development proceeds there would be exposure possibly resulting
in the declaration of a new AQMA.
The modelling estimates for 2010 that the levels of nitrogen dioxide are significantly above
the standard set for the annual average with possible exceedences of the short term
standard. The table below shows the projected levels of nitrogen dioxide for future years
at the M60 site and Farm Lane The M60 air quality station site is located 17 m from the
hard shoulder on the opposite side of the motorway to Farm Lane at St. Marks School. This
development is closer to the motorway, than the air quality station.
Table 1 Predicted Levels of Nitrogen dioxide ( annual average) ( µg/m3 )
Site
Grid Ref. 2005 2010 2020
M60 ( measurement)
374810.5 66
55
47
4000855.0
Farm Lane ( from modelling)1
374615.6 82.6 69.5 59
400075.6
1 Modelling results from Salford City Council August 2004.
Modelled particulate matter concentrations for 2004 also indicate that at the proposed
location the annual average is exceeded. The proximity of the development may trigger the
declaration of a new AQMA for particulate matter. In the review and assessment this area
was declared as an area of concern and subsequently additional monitoring for particulate
matter and nitrogen dioxide for a six month period was installed in November 2006. There
is insufficient data at the present to draw any conclusions from this survey.
Measurements at the M60 site have shown no fall in nitrogen dioxide concentrations as
predicted in Table 1. Based on the actual measurements in Table 2 it is highly likely that
levels are not falling as predicted and levels will remain above the air quality standard
certainly beyond 2010, that is the expected improvements in air quality have not occurred.
Table 2 Measured Concentrations of Nitrogen dioxide annual average)
(µg/m3) at the M60 Air Quality Station
NITROGEN
1999
2000
2001
2002 2003
2004 2005
DIOXIDE
AQS = 40 µg m-3
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Annual average
63
58
53
% Above Standard
58
45
33
5th July 2007
-
60
66
67
50
65
68
I recommended refusal of the application for the reasons stated above as the use of
planning conditions will not protect the amenity and health of the proposed occupiers due
to the surrounding area. The resultant exposure levels to air quality will not achieve an
acceptable level according to current and proposed air quality standards. The exposure to
noise will be significant. Acceptable noise levels are not likely to be achieved in garden
areas and suitable levels of noise could be achieved in the property with the use of sealed
(non opening) windows and mechanical ventilation, however this may result in poor living
conditions for future occupants.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
6) 15 to 39 Greenacre Lane
7) 22, 43 to 59 Farm Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received twelve letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity
and a request from Councillor Macdonald for the application to go to panel. The following
issues have been raised:
Security issues
Disruption during construction
Loss of privacy to rear gardens on Greenacre Lane
Increase in traffic
Design out of keeping with existing properties
Width of proposed entrance to narrow for emergency vehicles
Loss of mature orchard and impact on wildlife
Inaccuracies within the acoustic report (refers to apartments on Page 8)
No details of foundations submitted
If proposal was approved could other properties extend towards to the motorway
Impact on existing road surface
Pedestrian safety and impact of proposal on tree at No.57 Farm Lane
Impact on existing services
More houses, more burglaries
Loss of trees may increase noise from the motorway
Ditch adjacent to motorway appears to be being filled in
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
DP1: Economy in the Use of Land and Building
DP2: Enhancing the Quality of Life
DP3: Quality in New Development
UR1: Urban Renaissance
T9: Demand Management
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
DP1: Regional Development Principles
RDF1: Main Development Locations
L4: Regional Housing Provision
RT6: Parking Policy and Provision
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
ST11: Location of New Development
DES1: Respecting Context
DES9 - Landscaping
DES10: Design and Crime
H1: Provision of New Housing Development
H2: Managing the Supply of Housing
H8: Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing
Development
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
EN17 Pollution Control
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be: whether the
principle of the proposal is acceptable; whether the design of the proposed dwellings is
acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents or future occupants; and whether the application accords with the policies of the
UDP.
Principle
Policy DP1 of RSS requires economy in the use of land and buildings. It states that
development plans should adopt a sequential approach to meeting housing needs as
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
follows: firstly, the effective use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban
areas; secondly, the use of previously developed land; and finally the development of
previously undeveloped land, where it would avoid areas of important open space, is well
located in relation to houses, jobs, other services and infrastructure and is or can be made
accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.
Policy DP1 of Draft RSS also encourages the effective use of land, buildings and
infrastructure and advocates the sequential approach to meeting development needs, as
outlined in Adopted RSS Policy DP1.
Policy ST11 outlines the sequential approach to the bringing forward of land for
development and details the order in which sites for development should be brought
forward: existing buildings; previously developed land which is well served by a choice of
means of transport and is well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure;
previously developed land in other locations provided that adequate levels of accessibility
could be achieved; and finally greenfield sites in locations which are, or would be made to
be, well served by a choice of transport and well related to employment, services and
infrastructure.
Policy H1 requires all new housing development to comply with a number of criteria,
including: contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the area;
be built at an appropriate density; provide a high quality environment and adequate level of
amenity; and make adequate provision for open space.
Policy H2 requires the release of land for housing development to be managed in
accordance with the sequential approach set out in Policy ST11.
Policy HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance states that within West Salford,
Broughton Park, Claremont and the northern part of Weaste and Seedley, the large
majority of dwellings within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than
apartments. Apartments are likely to be most appropriate form of development in the city’s
Town and Neighbourhood Centres.
The application site is considered to be previously developed land because there is an
existing building on it. The site is located less than 500m from Barton Road which is served
by several bus routes that go to Walkden and Eccles Town Centres. There are also local
convenience stores nearby on Barton Road. The site is close to a junction with the M60
motorway for access to other parts of the city and the region. I would therefore consider
that the principal of the development would be in accordance with ST11 of the Adopted
Unitary Development Plan.
The site is located within the west of Salford and the proposed development consists
entirely of dwellings. The proposed density is 38 dwellings per hectare, I would therefore
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
consider the principle and density of the development to be acceptable in accordance with
H1 and the thrust of the Housing Planning Guidance.
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.
There would be no habitable room windows on the gables of the proposed dwellings except
a secondary window to the proposed plot adjacent to the car parking. The proposed
dwellings would be 12m from their rear boundaries and 21m from the rear elevations of
properties on Greenacre Lane. I would therefore not consider the proposal to give rise to an
unacceptable loss of privacy, light or overbearing to neighbouring occupants.
Each dwelling would have a separate rear garden and I would therefore consider there to be
an acceptable level of private amenity space for each dwelling.
Policy EN17 states that in areas where existing levels of pollution exceed local or national
standards, planning permission will only be granted where the development incorporates
adequate measures to ensure that there is no unacceptable risk or nuisance to occupiers, and
that they are provided with an appropriate and satisfactory level of amenity.
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has objected to the proposal on two
counts.
Air Quality – the proposed development is situated adjacent to the M60 motorway. The
area in which the development is situated is an Air Quality management Area (AQMA) for
nitrogen oxide. There is a monitoring station approximately 17m from the motorway on
the opposite side to the development site. The development site is closer than the
monitoring station. A predicted table of the level of Nitrogen dioxide indicates that the
levels will fall up to 2020. However, based on actual measurements the level of carbon
dioxide has been increasing in this area since 2000 and it is highly likely that levels are not
falling. The monitoring levels in 2005 indicated that the area was 68% above the Air
Quality Standard.
The applicant has submitted additional information which indicates a possible ventilation
system which is a ‘whole house’ system. This uses heat exchangers to recover heat from
the exhaust air to heat the incoming air. The system also details possible filtration which
could be targetted to reduce particulate matter within the proposed properties. This does
not however control Nitrogen Dioxide, which is one of the primary concerns with the close
proximity to the motorway. Nitrogen Dioxide is gaseous and as such, a typical filter will be
unable to remove or reduce the exposure to the gases. This is one of the key concerns with
the application from an air quality perspective at this point in time. It may be possible to
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
route the intake so that it is in a lower concentration of Nitrogen Dioxide however this
would need to be checked against current and proposed air quality modelling data.
Noise – The calculations have been processed using an approved method called
Calculation of Road Traffic Noise however the brief source data taken does not follow the
agreed necessary protocols for using this approved method. The results therefore cannot be
guaranteed as accurate. The survey data indicates that the site is in High Category C or D
from a PPG24 categorisation. C indicates planning should normally be refused however
mitigation measures may be feasible, D indicates permission should normally be refused.
Mitigation measures proposed for the site will only work within the building itself
provided that windows remain closed at all times. Smaller windows have been suggested
and high efficiency acoustic glazing has been recommended. Due to closed/sealed
windows, air for ventilation purposes will be necessary. No details yet exist suggesting a
suitable method for ventilating the property. These proposed measures would not provide
any protection for the outdoor areas and as such levels will be significantly above the
recommended guidelines.
Based on these details it is considered that the provision of family dwellings in this location
would not provide an acceptable living environment for future occupants. It is considered
that the use of planning conditions will not satisfactory mitigate against the impacts of air
quality. The exposure to noise will be significant. Acceptable noise levels are not likely to
be achieved in garden areas without unacceptable visual impacts due to engineering
methods likely to be needed. Reasonable noise levels within the properties can only be
achievable by utilising sealed (non opening) windows almost throughout the property. It is
considered that these measures would reduce the quality of the internal environment for
future occupants. The application is contrary to EN17 of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
Design
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with
this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing
buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
The surrounding properties are typically two storey brick with tiled or slate roofs. The
proposed dwellings would be constructed from red brick, white render and tiled roofs. The
proposed materials are different from the existing surrounding dwellings and an element of
rendering would be used. I consider that the proposed design to be acceptable as the
application site is located at the end of a cul-de-sac and thus the proposed dwellings would
not be highly visible in the street scene. I therefore consider the proposed design to be
acceptable in this location in accordance with DES1.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Car parking
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists
and motorcyclists and that maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded. There
would be seven car parking spaces available, which would be located to the east of the
proposed dwelling in a gated car parking area. Due to the size of the development, I do not
consider that the development would result in an unacceptable increase in parking
problems on Farm Lane and have no objections on highway safety grounds.
The entrance to the site allows one car to access/egress the site at one time and it would
have a speed hump as a traffic calming measure; there would also be a further speed hump
along the driveway to the car park. The width of the access is 3m, which is adequate for the
access of emergency vehicles. I therefore have no highway safety objections to the scheme,
as there are sufficient visibility spays for drivers to see oncoming vehicles and the vehicles
would be travelling at a low speed.
The Highways Agency does not consider the development would have an unacceptable
impact on the motorway and I do not consider it would increase the amount of traffic in the
area significantly. I am therefore of the opinion the application complies with Policy A10
of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the location of the proposal in close proximity to the M60
motorway would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of future occupants by
reason of noise and air quality. It is considered that it would not be possible to mitigate
against these impact through use of planning conditions. Therefore the proposal would be
in accordance with ENV17 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
The applicant has now lodged an appeal against non determination and accordingly Panel
cannot determine this application. Panel can nevertheless advise how they would have
determined the application if they were able to do.
RECOMMENDATION: That the panel resolve to agree and support the reason for
refusal set out below and that these reasons form the Council’s case at appeal
(Reasons)
1. The proposal would be in very close proximity to the motorway and the resultant noise
levels and poor air quality could not provide satisfactory living conditions for future
residents of the houses contrary to policy EN17 of the adopted Unitary Development
Plan.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54265/ADV
APPLICANT:
Dairmiles Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
37-39 Cavendish Road Salford M7 4WP
PROPOSAL:
Display of a non illuminated advertisement hoarding
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The applicant seeks consent for the display of a non-illuminated advertising hoarding, to
the front of 37-39 Cavendish Road, for a period of 3 years. The sign would advertise 8
apartments, which were granted planning permission on 21st September 2006.
Construction has not started on the development of the apartments.
The advertisement would be 2.44m in width and 1.22m in height. It is proposed to erect the
sign 1.5m above the ground, directly adjacent to trees which sits behind the boundary wall
to the application site. The sign would have a picture of the proposed apartments and also
contact details for the selling agents. The local area is residential in nature.
The applicant has appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against the non determination of
this application. The application has not been determined due primarily to issues over the
impact of the proposed development on trees. A tree survey was not initially submitted in
support of the application. The survey was received on 29th March. Our consultant arborist
recommended that 6 Holly Trees along the frontage of the application site be protected by a
Tree Preservation Order (TPO), owing to the significant amenity value they offer.
A request for the tree preservation order was made on 20th June 2007. A provisional tree
preservation order has now been made. Prior to this being made, the city council were not
in a position to formally determine the application.
SITE HISTORY
There have been two recent applications on the site of 37-39 Cavendish Road. The details
are as follows:
06/52187/DEMCON for the prior notification for the demolition of the dwellings
was permitted on 13/3/06.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
06/52781/FUL was approved on 21/9/06. This was for the demolition of the
existing properties and erection of a part two/three/four storey building with
undercroft car parking to provide eight apartments.
PUBLICITY
The following addresses have been notified:
ii. 24, 26,28, 30 and 35 Cavendish Road.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity.
NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE
PPG19 – Outdoor Advertisement Control
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific Policies: None
Other Policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DEV2 – Advertisements
OTHER LOCAL PLANNING GUIDANCE
Trees and Development SPD - Policy TD1
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issues for consideration are the impact the proposed advertising board would
have on the character/amenity of the area, highway safety and on trees. The main policies
of relevance are policies DES1, DEV2 and EN13 of the adopted UDP, and TD1 of the
Trees and Development SPD.
Character / amenity of area
PPG19 requires that the proposed signage respects visual amenity on the immediate
neighbourhood or building itself, and public safety in the form of pedestrians and traffic.
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Policy DEV2 of the UDP states that advertisements should be of a size and scale consistent
with its surroundings, respect the sensitivity of the location, minimise any negative impact
including on public open spaces and environmental improvement corridors, and avoid
creating signage clutter.
UDP 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
to local identity and distinctiveness.
“
I do not consider that the proposed advertisement would be of a size and scale appropriate
to the surrounding area. The area is characterised by residential properties and tree lined
frontages. There are no other advertisement signs in the immediate local area, and I
consider it to be overly large, especially in view of its context. The sign would be located
along the tree lined frontage to the site, and it would detract from the visual and
environmental amenity that these trees provide. As such the sign does not fit in with its
context, introduces an unsightly feature, and does not contribute to the local identity of the
area.
”
The reasoned justification to Policy DEV2 states that The level of commercial activity
within an area will influence the sensitivity of the location in terms of determining
advertisement applications, with residential areas being particularly sensitive . This is a
residential area where there are is no commercial activity, and I consider that the display of
the sign for a period of up to 3 years would have an unacceptable visual imapct, and harm
the charcater of the area.
In this sensitive residential setting I consider the proposed advertisment would harm the
character / amenity of the area, and be contrary to PPG19 and UDP Policies DES1 and
DEV2.
“
Impact on Trees
”
UDP Policy EN13 states that Development that would result in the unacceptable loss of,
or damage to, protected trees will not be permitted. Where the loss of trees is considered
acceptable, adequate replacement provision will be required .
Policy TD1 of the Trees and Development SPD states that where a proposed development
could affect existing trees, a tree survey should be submitted with any planning
application. The tree survey shall include all the information required as per the
specification of BS 5837: 2005, or by any subsequent updates to this standard.
Following a request, a tree survey was submitted in support of the application. This was not
provided with the original submission. Our arboricultural consultant has visited the site and
notes that a mature row of six holly trees, some of which have multiple stems, have grown
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
up to provide a suitable screen from the site and continue a tree lined theme along the road.
These are trees 3875-3880 of drawing number 5416 of the submitted tree survey.
Our arborist considers that the holly trees provide a significant amenity value as well as
providing a suitable habitat for nesting birds, and so should be protected as a group with a
Tree Preservation Order. The trees have provisionally been protected under Order 362, and
it is considered that the advertising board could not be erected without heavily pruning the
holly trees. It is considered that this would be excessive, causing damage to the trees, and
therefore be contrary to UDP Policy EN13.
Highways Issues
PPG19 requires that the proposed signage respects
I have no objections on highway grounds to the proposal, so long as the proposed sign does
not encroach on the public highway. The sign would not be located on the public highway.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion it is considered that the proposal is contrary to PPG19, and policies DES1,
DEV2 and EN13 of the adopted UDP. However an appeal against non determination has
been made. The Panel cannot therefore determine this application.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Panel resolve to agree and support the reasons set out below and that these reasons
form the Council’s case at appeal:
(Reasons)
1. The proposed sign would seriously injure the amenity of the area because it would be a
strident feature in the street scene by reason of its size and siting thereby significantly
affecting the amenity of the area contrary to the provisions of PPG 19, and UDP
Policies DES1and DEV2.
2. The proposed development would result in unacceptable damage to protected trees of
high amenity value contrary to Policy EN13 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan 2004-2016 and Policy TD2 of the adopted Trees and Development
Supplementary Planning Document.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54486/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr R Bielawski
LOCATION:
7 Half Edge Lane Eccles M30 9GJ
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing coach house and erection of two
storey granny flat (Resubmission of previous application
06/53590/HH)
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the erection of a part single / part two storey granny flat, to the
rear of 7 Half Edge Lane, Eccles. The rear boundary of this site abuts Victoria Road. The
proposed development is within the Ellesmere Park Conservation area, and would be sited
on approximately the same footprint as an existing coach house. The coach house is located
on the common boundary with 5b Half Edge Lane.
The existing coach house is in a derelict condition and is visible from Victoria Road. The
coach house is 5.3m high, 10m long, by 5.4m in width. The proposed building would be
5.8m to the ridge of the roof, be 10m long and 6m in width.
At ground floor level there would be a lounge. At first floor there would be 2 bedrooms
and a bathroom. There would be dormer windows on the eastern elevation, looking into the
applicant’s garden, and windows in the south elevation, looking back towards 7 Half Edge
Lane.
A conservation area consent application is on this agenda for the demolition of the existing
coach house (07/54487/CON).
SITE HISTORY
There have been two recent applications that were both refused under delegated powers.
06/53591/CON was for Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing coach
house. It was refused on 14th December 2006 for the following reason:
Insufficient information to demonstrate compliance with criteria i) ii) an iii) of
the Unitary Development Plan Policy CH4, Demolition of Buildings within
Conservation Areas.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Planning application 06/53590/HH which was for the erection of a two storey granny flat,
was refused on 24th November 2006. It was refused on the basis that:
1. The proposed development would due to its scale, massing and siting have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the residents of no.5b Half Edge Lane by
reason of its overbearing nature contrary to the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan Policy DES7; and
2. The proposed development would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on
Victoria Road as it would be out of character and incongruous with the with the
existing street scene of Victoria Road contrary to the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan Policy DES1 ,Council's Supplementary Planning Document:
House Extensions, and Supplementary Planning Document Ellesmere Park Design
Guide.
PUBLICITY
The following addresses have been notified:
1-23 Ellesmere House, 1 Sandwich Road
Flats 1-7, Ash Bank, 9 Half Edge Lane
5A/5B Half Edge Lane
2 Victoria Road
2 and 4 Sandwich Road
Ground Floor / First Floor Flat, 4 Sandwich Road
A site notice and press notice have been published.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Out of character with conservation area
Impact on street scene and building line
Loss of light
Overbearing
Privacy
Building may become a self contained dwelling
Highway safety
Design and materials
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Councillor Ann Davies has requested that the application be determined by the Planning
and Transportation Regulatory Panel as she considers the application is contrary to policies
EP1, EP4 and EP5 of the Ellesmere Park SPD. She is concerned that the applicant has not
submitted a satisfactory Design and Access Statement, the coach house should be retained
and repaired, and that the design and layout of the proposed development would be out of
character with the area.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
ER3 – Built Heritage
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
EM1 – Integrated Land Management
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific Policies: None
Other Policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
CH3 – Works within Conservation areas
A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
OTHER LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
Ellesmere Park SPD: EP4 – Works to existing buildings
EP5 – Layout and scale of new developments
EP6 – Building details and materials
EP9 – Car parking, cycle parking and servicing
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the design of the
proposed new building is acceptable; whether there would be an impact on the character of
the conservation area; whether there would be an impact on the amenity of existing or
future residents; and whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s Ellesmere Park SPD.
Design and Impact on the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Adopted Policy RSS Policy ER3 states that proposal and schemes should where possible,
enhance natural, man-made and historic features that contribute to the character and culture
of landscapes, places and local distinctiveness. Draft Policy EM1 re-iterates this.
UDP Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical
context and respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and
contribute towards a local identity and distinctiveness.
UDP Policy CH3 states that development in conservation areas will only be permitted
where it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. In
determining this, regard will be had to the extent to which the proposal:
o
o
o
o
o
retains or improves features that contribute to the character or appearance of the
conservation area;
is of a high standard of design, consistent with the design policies of the plan;
retains existing mature trees;
secures environmental improvements and enhancements; and
protects and improves important views within, into and out of the conservation area
Policy EP5 of the Ellesemre Park SPD states that development in Ellesemere Park should
retain the spacious character of the area, including the scale, massing and site coverage of
buildings, and that development should reflect the typical layout of existing plots within
the area, including in terms of a strong building line set well behind a boundary wall, and
that building heights should be consistent with surrounding developments.
Ellesmere Park SPD Policy EP6 is clear that developments should normally seek to use the
traditional Victorian materials and incorporate the building design details that characterise
the area.
The proposed development would be on approximately the same footprint as the existing
coach house and would be only 0.5m higher than the current structure. The City Council’s
Conservation Officer has been involved in pre-application discussions with regards to the
proposed development and was consulted on this application. He has commented that as
there is already a derelict structure on the site of a similar scale / massing, he considers that
the proposed replacement is acceptable in the street scene.
It is considered that the proposed development would enhance the character of the
conservation area and is of a sufficiently high standard of design. The coverage of
buildings within the site would not be significantly different to that which already exists,
and although the proposed development would not reflect the typical layout of existing
plots within the area, I consider that the proposed development would be acceptable given
that the development would be taking place within the general footprint of an existing
structure. The coach house already forms part of the building line and its replacement
would not be materially different to warrant a contrary view.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
The Design and Access Statement states that the proposed development will incorporate
the original brick, grey slate for roof and dormers, reconstituted / stone cills, and brick
heads to match the existing main house. I am satisfied that in principle the materials and
design are appropriate and would complement those of the local area. Notwithstanding
this, a condition has been attached to ensure that samples of the materials for the external
elevations and roof of the building are submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority.
As a whole I am satisfied that the proposed development would enhance the character and
appearance of the conservation area. The existing structure is unsightly and does detract
from the appearance of the conservation area.
Amenity of Neighbouring Residents
Policy DES7 of the UDP states that alterations and extensions to existing buildings will be
required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space,
sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. It states that development will not be
permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers or user
of other developments.
Non-principal habitable room windows are proposed in the south elevation at ground floor
level. There would be no direct overlooking between these windows and those in the side
elevation of the rear outrigger of 5b Half Edge Lane.
The habitable windows in the east elevation of the proposed property would maintain a
minimum distance of 6m to the boundary with 9 Half Edge Lane. I am of the opinion that
this would not cause an unacceptable detrimental impact by means of overlooking given
that the proposed habitable windows would not directly overlook that of the neighbouring
dwellinghouse, and that the area that the windows would face is hardstanding and is
already overlooked from Victoria Road. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed
development would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residents in terms of
privacy.
The existing height of the coach house is 5.3m The proposed height of the new building
would be 5.8m and it is considered that the reduction in height from the originally proposed
6.3m (under planning application 06/53590/HH which was previously refused ) means that
the development would not have an unacceptable overbearing impact on the residents of 5b
Half Edge Lane, especially when considered in the context of the height of the current
building, and that now proposed.
I would not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the
privacy or outlook of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings or the future occupants of
the proposal in accordance with Adopted Policy DES 7.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Highways and Parking
Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks maximum parking standards for all
developments. Within the emerging planning framework and in line with central
government advice there is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.
Policy EP9 states that surface car parking should normally be located at the side or rear of
new developments, within a private enclosure.
The existing hardstanding that currently provides parking for the application would be
maintained at the existing size of approximately 12m in length and 6m in width. The
parking area is to the rear of the site and is within a private enclosure, and given that the use
of the proposed building would be ancillary to the main dwelling (and that this would be
conditioned to ensure this remains so), I am satisfied that the parking arrangements are
satisfactory and that the development would not give rise to an unacceptable increase in the
number of vehicles accessing the site. Highways have been consulted on this application
and have no objections on highway safety grounds.
Other Issues
I am of the opinion that the development would be incidental to the use of the main
dwelling, and that the property would be used by visiting family members. The plans show
that the proposed development would not contain a kitchen. The proposed development
would therefore rely upon facilities in the main dwellinghouse in order to maintain the
additional living accommodation. Notwithstanding this any planning permission can be
conditioned to ensure that the proposed development shall only be occupied as
accommodation ancillary to the main dwelling, and not as a separate dwelling house.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that both the principle of development and the design is
acceptable given the location within the Conservation Area. 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 A03 Three year time limit
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, samples of the
materials for the external elevations and roof of the building shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be carried out
using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the local planning
authority.
3. The proposed development hereby approved shall be occupied as accommodation
ancillary to the main dwelling and not as a separate dwelling house.
Reasons:
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. To safeguard the amenity of the area and neighbouring residents in accordance with
policies DES1 and DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the
Applicant should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of
their proposal. Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before
undertaking any operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including
coal mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works.
Property specific summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and
underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal
Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762
6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
APPLICATION No:
07/54487/CON
APPLICANT:
Mr R Bielawski
LOCATION:
7 Half Edge Lane Eccles M30 9GJ
PROPOSAL:
Conservation area consent for the demolition of existing
coach house (Resubmission of previous application
06/53591/CON)
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
5th July 2007
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the demolition of an existing coach house to the rear of 7 Half
Edge Lane, Eccles. The coach house is 5.3m high, 10m long, and 5.4m wide. It is visible
from Victoria Road, which runs to the rear of the properties on Half Edge Lane. The site
lies within the Ellesmere Park Conservation area.
A planning application for the erection of a ‘granny flat’ on the site of the existing coach
house is also on this agenda (07/54486/HH).
SITE HISTORY
A recent application for the demolition of the coach house (06/53591/CON) was refused on
14th December 2006 on the grounds of: “Insufficient information to demonstrate
compliance with criteria i) ii) an iii) of the Unitary Development Plan Policy CH4,
Demolition of Buildings within conservation areas”.
PUBLICITY
The following addresses have been notified:
1-23 Ellesmere House, 1 Sandwich Road
Flats 1-7, Ash Bank, 9 Half Edge Lane
5A/5B Half Edge Lane
2 Victoria Road
2 and 4 Sandwich Road
Ground Floor / First Floor Flat, 4 Sandwich Road
A site notice and press notice have been published.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity
relating to this application and application 07/54486/HH. The main issues raised of
relevance to this application are that the coach house should be repaired, and that the
applicant has not demonstrated that the cost of this would be prohibitive.
Councillor Ann Davies has requested that the application be determined by the Planning
and Transportation Regulatory Panel as she considers that the proposed development
would be contrary to Policy EP4 of the Ellesmere Park SPD, which states that
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
“redevelopment proposals involving the loss of existing buildings … will only be
permitted where they are not capable of continued beneficial use or conversion”.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: CH3 – Works Within Conservation Areas
CH4 – Demolition of Buildings Within Conservation Areas
OTHER LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
Ellesmere Park SPD: EP4
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the demolition of the
existing buildings is acceptable; whether there would be an impact on the character of the
conservation area; and whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan, and Ellesmere Park SPD.
Design and Impact on Conservation Area
Adopted Policy CH3 States that development within conservation areas will only be
acceptable where they would preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area
Adopted Policy CH4 states that the demolition of existing buildings within conservation
areas will only be acceptable where they make no positive contribution to the character and
appearance of a conservation area.
Policy EP4 of the Ellesemere Park states that existing buildings that make a positive
contribution to the character of Ellesmere Park should be retained wherever practicable.
Redevelopment proposals involving the loss of such buildings in the Ellesmere Park
Conservation Area will only be permitted where they are not capable of continued
beneficial use or conversion, or the replacement development would be of a significantly
higher design quality that would enhance the character of the area.
Paragraph 4.27 of PPG15 states that there should be a general presumption against the
demolition of buildings that make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of
a conservation area. It also states that consent for demolition should be not be given unless
there are acceptable and detailed plans for any redevelopment.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
With regards to the last point, a planning application for the erection of a “granny flat” is on
this agenda. The plans for the replacement of the coach house are now considered to be
acceptable, having been revised since the refusal of planning application 06/53590/HH.
I am satisfied that the coach house makes no positive contribution to the character and
appearance of the conservation area. The Council’s Conservation Officer has been
consulted and is of the opinion that the current structure is in a derelict condition and
detracts from the character and appearance of the conservation area. He has also stated that
the proposed development (under application 07/54486/HH) is of a better design quality
than the structure which is proposed for demolition. He has recommended that the
application is approved.
Objectors have commented that although it is obvious that the former coach house is in
need of repair, there is no evidence of the need to demolish it, or that it could not be
repaired for a reasonable cost. As a result they consider that the proposed development is
contrary to UDP Policy CH4 criterion ii), which states that demolition within a
conservation area will only be permitted where the cost of repair is prohibitive.
Although the applicant has not submitted any evidence to demonstrate that there is no
viable use of the current structure and that the cost of repairing would be prohibitive, I do
not consider the proposed development is contrary to Policy CH4. Only one of the three
criterion in the policy need to be satisfied. In my opinion the proposed demolition satisfies
criteria i) and iii), in that the structure makes no positive contribution to the character or
appearance of the area, and given that the replacement structure is of better design quality
than the structure to be demolished.
The proposed demolition complies with UDP Policies CH3 and CH4, and Ellesmere Park
SPD Policy EP4.
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the loss of the building and its consequent replacement is acceptable,
and that that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan. There are no material considerations which outweigh this finding, and I
therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
2. No demolition shall commence until a development contract has been signed for the
construction of the replacement building as approved under planning permission
reference 07/54486/HH and submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
2. To safeguard the amenity of the Conservation Area in accordance with policy CH3 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
07/54578/FUL
APPLICANT:
Dencourt Ltd
LOCATION:
Land On Corner Of Manchester Road/Bolton Road
Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a three/four storey building comprising
commercial use on ground floor with 24 apartments on
upper floors together with associated car parking and
construction of new, and alteration to existing vehicular
and pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is situated on the corner of Manchester Road and Bolton Road and extends to an
area of approximately 0.161 hectares and is currently vacant and occupied by
advertisement hoardings and a number of self-seeded trees.
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
A medical centre is situated to the north, this building is one and a half storey’s in height,
the Stocks Hotel to the east is two-storey’s in height, and a new apartment block
constructed to the north east is 3/4 storey’s in height.
764 square metres of commercial space is proposed at ground floor level (A2, A3 or A5 use
class) with residential on the upper 3 levels. 24 apartments are proposed, 4 no. one
bedroom flats, 17 no. two bedroom flats and 3 no. 3 bedroom flats. Both a private and
communal terrace are proposed on the fourth floor. 11 parking spaces are proposed
including 2 disabled spaces, 2 motorcycle spaces are proposed and 2 internal bike stores
providing safe and secure storage for 16 bicycles. 2 internal bin stores are proposed.
Access is proposed from Harriet Street.
SITE HISTORY
98/38641/OUT - Outline application for the erection of two-storey building to be used for
community training for people with learning disabilities & associated car parking –
Permitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Would like to see the recessed
doorway to the residential units reduced to no more than a 600 mm recess and advise that
the car park/service yard should be secured with suitable gates and railings, 1.8 metres high
– amended plans have been received incorporating these comments.
The Director of Environmental Services – advise the attachment of a contaminated land
condition and a condition restricting the types of commercial use that can occupy the
ground floor units. Also recommend conditions restricting the operation hours of the
commercial units and the loading bay. Commented that a soundproofing scheme to protect
the future occupants of the apartments from noise generated by the ground floor
commercial uses should also be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of
development.
United Utilities – no comments received to date.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 9th May 2007
A press notice was published on 10th May 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Units 1 – 6, Old Co Op Buildings, High Street
Basement & ground floor, 2 Bridgewater Road
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
1 and 2 – 10 (evens) Bridgewater Road
1, 5, 7, 9, 11 Manchester Road
2 Hodge Road
1 – 25 (odds), 23A, 23B Bolton Road
First floor & second floor, 3 Bolton Road
9B Bolton Road
Flat, 15 Bolton Road
Stocks Hotel, Manchester Road
Cottage Tandoori, Manchester Road
Walkden Congregational Church, Smith Street
REPRESENTATIONS
A letter has been received from Councillor Lindley requesting that the application be heard
by the Panel and expressing concern in relation to the provision of parking spaces.
5 letters of objection have been received in response to the application publicity. These
raise the following concerns:
1. The Ellesmere centre has a large number of empty units, can Walkden support
further expansion of commercial space;
2. The apartments in Stocks Court were recently completed in the new year, there are
still flats available;
3. Inadequate parking arrangements, will lead to vehicles parking within Harriet
Street, Smith Street, Emlyn Street and Egerton Road where parking is already at a
premium;
4. Building will create a dark space between the church and the new apartments
putting users of the medical centre car park at risk;
5. Construction work may obstruct entrance to the medical centre car park;
6. Creating an alleyway for undesirables between this high building and the medical
centre;
7. The building would be an eyesore taking away the only green space left in the town
centre; and
8. Overlooking.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 – Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None.
Other policies:
ST11 – Location of New Development
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
S2 – Retail and Leisure Development outside Town Centres and
Neighbourhood Centres
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
EN16 – Contaminated Land
EN17 – Pollution Control
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are: whether the
principle of the proposal is acceptable; whether the proposed development is of an
appropriate design and scale; whether there would be any impact on the amenity of existing
or future residents in the area; whether there would be sufficient parking; whether there
would be an appropriate contribution towards the provision of open space; and whether the
development accords with the relevant policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan I
shall deal with each of these in turn.
Principle of development
Residential
Policy ST11 outlines the criteria for the location of new development. The site is currently
vacant and was previously occupied by terraced properties. Planning permission was
granted in 1998 for a building to be used for community training.
Policy H1 of the UDP sates that all new residential developments should contribute
towards a balanced mix of dwellings in the local area. Further to this, policy HOU1 of the
Council’s Housing Planning Guidance notes that in West Salford, the large majority of
dwellings should be in the form of family housing unless an applicant can clearly
demonstrate that there are special circumstances that justify an alternative approach having
regard to criteria A to H of UDP policy H1. The scheme proposes 100% apartments and
therefore does not accord with the broad thrust of policy HOU1.
The submitted planning statements seeks to justify 100% apartment provision in terms of
accessibility and design. The sites location on the very edge of a defined town centre
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
would suggest it has good accessibility to a broad range of services and facilities and this
coupled with the sites prominent location at a major road junction would broadly indicate
that a reasonably high density form of development would be acceptable. I am therefore
satisfied that in this particular instance a development comprising of 100% apartments is
justified.
Policy HOU2 notes that where apartments are proposed, a broad mix of dwelling sizes both
in terms of the number of bedrooms and net residential floorspace of the apartments should
be provided. Paragraph 4.31 of the reasoned justification to policy HOU2 requires the
majority of apartments in new developments to have two or three bedrooms with a
floorspace of 57 square metres which is considered adaptable to changing needs. The
proposal provides a reasonable mix of dwellings in terms of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom properties
and all but 2 of the 24 apartments proposed have floor areas in excess of 57 square metres.
The proposal therefore complies with the requirements of policy HOU2.
The original application included possible A1 use at ground floor level, further to
comments from Spatial Planning which advise that insufficient evidence has been
submitted to demonstrate that A1 uses will not effect the existing retail units within
Walkden town centre in accordance with policy S2 of the UDP. A condition preventing A1
use at ground floor level would be attached to any planning consent, the agents have
confirmed agreement to this.
Design and appearance
Policy DES10 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and
property security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of
factors including the provision of security features. All comments made by the Greater
Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer have been incorporated into the scheme
and the proposal therefore accords with policy DES10.
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, and contribute towards
local identity and distinctiveness.
There are a number of self-seeded trees within the site all of which would be removed as
part of the development. The Consultant aroriculturalist has inspected the trees and is of
the opinion that the trees do not present a valuable asset and would not be worthy of
protection.
The car parking would be situated to the rear of the site and would thus be screened from
Manchester Road and Bolton Road by the building itself.
The building has a curved frontage to Manchester Road and Bolton Road and would be 3/4
storey’s in height. The building has a maximum height of 15.5 metres. The fourth floor
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
would be recessed 1.2 metres from the front of the site and approximately 10 metres from
both the north and east of the site having the effect of reducing the massing of the building.
The medical centre situated to the north of the site is a one and a half storey building with a
height of 5.3 metres adjacent to the site boundary rising to a maximum height of 8.6 metres.
The Stocks Hotel situated to the east of the site separated by Harriet Street is a two storey
building and has a height of 11 metres adjacent to the site boundary rising to a maximum
height of 12.7 metres. It is not considered that the proposed development would be an
unduly dominant feature when considered in context to the surrounding properties and
therefore is considered acceptable to be of an acceptable scale.
Around this radial point adjacent to Walkden Town Centre it is common to have a large 3
storey or 4 storey building close to the centre with properties decreasing in scale as the
streets move away from the centre. It is considered that this building is in line with this
design principle and would be of an appropriate scale.
A condition would be attached to any planning consent requiring the submission of sample
materials to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development. I am
satisfied that this will ensure that the materials are of a sufficiently high quality. I therefore
have no objections to the application in this regard.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact
upon the visual amenity of the area as the building will add value and quality to the built
environment in this prominent corner location in accordance with Policy DES1.
Amenity
Policy DES7 considers that all new development, will be required to provide potential
users with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development will not be permitted where it
would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments.
Concerns have been raised regarding the impact during construction on access to the
medical centre, it is therefore considered appropriate to attach a condition requiring the
submission of a site operating statement.
There are no habitable room windows proposed in the north or east elevations facing the
medical centre and the Stocks Hotel. The proposed habitable rooms to the rear and the
proposed roof terrace are situated at their closest point 30 metres from the apartment block
to the north east of the site at an oblique angle. Habitable room windows in the south
elevation are situated 37 metres from the commercial properties opposite and habitable
room windows in the west elevation are situated 32 metres from the commercial properties
opposite. It is therefore considered that this distance is acceptable not to have an adverse
amenity on future residents.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Having had regard to the concerns of local residents I am satisfied that the proposed
development would not compromise the amenity of future or existing residents of the area
and is in accordance with policy DES7.
Highway safety/parking issues
Policy A10 considers that development will be required to make adequate provision for
disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists in accordance with the minimum standards set
out in appendix B and to not exceed the maximum car parking standards set out in
appendix C.
In accordance with the above, 11 parking spaces have been proposed for the apartments, 2
of which would be disabled parking spaces. 2 motorcycle spaces are proposed and space
for 18 bicycles within an internal, safe and secure cycle store. Access to the site would be
from Harriet Street.
The site is situated adjacent to Walkden Town Centre and the site is therefore well served
by public transport and is within easy walking distance of the associated shops and local
services. In light of the above, the Council’s maximum car parking standards and the need
to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, it is not considered that the
proposal would exacerbate parking problems to such an extent as to result in material harm
to highway safety or a significant increase in traffic in the locality.
Contribution
Policy H8 requires adequate provision of formal and informal open space within housing
development. The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document sets out the
planning contributions required.
In accordance with the above policy, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution of
£90,398 plus a 2.5% administration fee towards public open space in the vicinity of the
site; improvements to the city’s public realm, heritage and infrastructure; the training of
local residents in construction skills; and the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions. I
have attached a condition requiring such a contribution. I am therefore satisfied that the
residents of the proposed development would have access to adequate open space and I
have no objections to the application in this regard.
VALUE ADDED
The application has been subject to pre-application discussions prior to its submission. In
addition alterations have been made during the course of the application, which include
recessing the doorway to no more than 600 mm and providing a 1.8 metre boundary
treatment and introducing disabled car parking spaces.
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
CONCLUSION
The proposed development accords with the relevant policies of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan and of the Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy. It is considered that the
proposed development is acceptable in principle and would not give rise to an unacceptable
loss of amenity to adjacent residents or an unsatisfactory level of traffic generation. It is
considered that the proposed development is of a high quality of design and would
positively contribute to the street scene and the vitality of Walkden Town Centre and
therefore it is recommended that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act.
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 the development hereby approved, samples and details
of the materials for the External elevations of the development shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried
out using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
3. The car parking, disabled parking spaces, cycle and motorcycle spaces shown on the
approved plan (01 Rev B, received 11/06/07) shall be constructed and laid out to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the residential
units and shall be made available at all times.
4. The use of the ground floor units, shall relate only to uses within classes A2, A3, or A4
of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005.
5. Prior to the commencement of 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
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
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.
c) 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 the 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 Local Planning Authority.
remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the
developer prior to the occupation of the site.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for external
lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any of the
apartments hereby approved, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
7. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the
local planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement
in relation to provision of permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials
and delivery and collection of equipment, provision and use of on-site parking for
contractors' and workpeople's vehicles, wheelwashing facilities, street sweeping and no
development or activities related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site in
contravention of such site operating statement.
8. No A3 or A4 unit shall be brought into use unless and until a detailed scheme for the
extraction system which treats fumes and odours before their emission to the
atmosphere so as to render them innocuous has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall detail how the extraction
unit will be attenuated and mounted to minimise the transmission of airbourne and
structure bourne noise and vibration. The works forming the approved scheme shall be
completed entirely in accordance with the approved scheme and thereafter the works
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
forming the approved scheme shall at all times remain in place.
9. 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.
10. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is
started. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls,
fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the
commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of
the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of the initial
implementation of the planting scheme shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
11. The recommended acoustic mitigation measures detailed in the Hepworth Acoustics
Report Number 4672 1v1 (June 2007) shall be incorporated into the construction of the
building and retained as such thereafter. Any deviations from the recommendations
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to
their incorporation within the building fabric. Prior to first occupation of the site, a
verification report confirming all acoustic protection measures have been incorporated
into the building design shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
12. The loading bay shall NOT operate on a Sunday and shall only operate between the
hours of 07:30 and 17:30 Monday to Friday and 07:30 and 13:00 on Saturdays.
13. The commercial units hereby approved shall only operate between 7:30 to 23:30
Monday to Saturday and 8:30 to 22:30 on Sundays.
14. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme detailing soundproofing
measures to be installed to protect the amenity of future occupants of the apartments
hereby approved from noise and disturbance created by the commcercial units hereby
approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Once agreed in writing, all approved soundproofing measures shall be
implemented in full prior to the first use of the premises as a restaurant and shall be
maintained as such thereafter.
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
(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: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy A 8 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with
policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan
6. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with
policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with
policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with
policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
9. 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.
10. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
12. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
13. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
14. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54634/OUT
APPLICANT:
P Hawley And J Reeves
LOCATION:
Land Formerly The Site Of 211 Trafford Road Salford
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for a mixed use development
to include 57 apartments, 1378 sq.m of B1 office together
with access and associated car parking spaces
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant site on Trafford Road. The surrounding uses comprise
mainly of office provision and restaurant uses although planning permission has recently
be granted for a residential scheme to the east. More widely, the Quays as a whole provides
a mix of residential, retail, leisure and commercial uses.
Consent is sought for a mixed use development including 57 apartments and 1,378 sq m of
B1 office floorspace together with access and associated car parking provision. The
application is in outline but seeks consent for layout, scale, appearance and means of
access. Landscaping is reserved for later approval.
Pedestrian access to the commercial element of the building would be from Trafford Road
with the access to the residential element taken from Archie Street or directly from the car
parking levels. Vehicular access would be taken from Archie Street.
To the north of the site is Tesco Metro a single storey building. Adjacent to that is the Fit
City Ordsall Sports Centre, which is two storey in appearance. To the east of the site is a
residential development that includes a range of building heights. The element closest to
this proposal will be seven storey in height once complete. Generally, the scale of
buildings under construction increases in height to the south of this site.
The site to the south is a vacant site which has outline planning permission for office
provision (05/50001/OUT). No reserved matters have been submitted to the Local
Planning Authority in respect of this outline consent.
SITE HISTORY
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Recent site history
Outline planning permission for mixed use development to include residential, office
space and health centre together with associated car parking was refused under the
Council’s scheme of delegation in October 2006 (06/52962/OUT). The reasons for refusal
as set out below:
Insufficient details have been submitted to enable the design and scale implications
of the proposed development to be assessed
Insufficient information has been submitted to enable the implications of a
proposed health care facility to be assessed contrary to policy EHC3 of the adopted
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
The proposal would not provide future occupiers with a sufficient level of amenity
by virtue of a lack of any private amenity space insufficient aspect and outlook
contrary to policy DES7 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
General site history
95/33406/OUT – Renewal of outline planning application for erection of three storey
office block within three level underground car park
98/38052/OUT – Renewal of outline application for the erection of a three storey office
block with a three level underground car park
01/42550/OUT - Renewal of outline application for the erection of a three storey office
building
04/47654/OUT - Renewal of outline planning permission (01/42550/OUT) for the erection
of a three storey office building
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – Has advised that no formal response is required
United Utilities – No objection subject to a separate drainage system. Connection would
require United Utilities approval.
Director of Environmental Services – No response. However, in response to the previous
application which is similar to this current proposal in terms of mix the Director had no
objection subject to the provision of appropriately worded conditions in relation to site
investigation, noise (from fixed plant, construction hours, impact on future occupiers and
ventilation)
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – Recognise that the building design has
been developed with regard to the principle of establishing an active frontage to Trafford
Road at ground floor level, and strongly support this principle. Note, however, that the
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
active frontage does only extend to part of the Trafford Road elevation, with the remaining
facade presenting a blank elevation at ground floor level to be screened with vegetation.
Given the constrained site footprint, it is acknowledged that there are limited options for
creating an active frontage along the full Trafford Road elevation without significantly
reducing the on-site parking provision. It is also recognised that Trafford Road does not
currently present an attractive environment to encourage pedestrian activity and animation,
which in turn undermines the attractiveness of any ground floor units to the market. In
summary, whilst the URC continue to support the principle of encouraging active
frontages to Trafford Road where practicable, they do not wish to object to this scheme.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 11th May 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 17th May 2006
The following addresses were notified:
Ordsall Sports Centre, Craven Drive
Arbuckles American Café, 1 Capital Quays
Frankie And Bennys, 2 Capital Quays
Chiquitos, 3 Capital Quays
Tesco Express, Trafford Road
The Dock Office, Trafford Road
Ontario House, 2 Furness Quay
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any response to the application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/3 – Development in Mixed Use Areas (Salford Quays)
Other policies: ST2: Housing Supply, ST7: Mixed-Use Development, ST11: Location of
New Development, ST12: Development Density, DES1: Respecting Context, DES2:
Circulation and Movement, DES3: Design of Public Space, DES4: Relationship of
Development with Public Space, DES5: Tall Buildings, Landscaping, DES10: Design and
Crime, DES11: Design Statement, H1: Provision of New Housing Development, H2:
Managing the Supply of Housing, H4: Affordable Housing, H8: Open Space Provision
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Associated with New Housing Development, A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and
Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, EN16: Contaminated Land, EN17: Pollution
Control, R2: Provision of Recreational Land and Facilities, DEV5: Planning Conditions
and Obligations
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1
–
L4
MCR2 -
Regional Development Principles
Regional Housing Provision
Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City Region
There are a number of Supplementary Planning Documents which are also relevant to the
determination of this application. These include Design and Crime. The Council’s
Housing Planning Guidance and Planning Obligations SPD are also material.
I consider that the main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the
principle of and the proposed scale of development is acceptable; whether the density,
design, layout and mix of the proposal is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental
impact on residential amenity; whether the proposal would have any impact upon highway
safety; and whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable. I shall deal with each of
these issues in turn.
Principle of the Redevelopment of the Site
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 H2 requires the release of land for housing development to be managed in
accordance with the sequential approach set out in Policy ST11.
Policy DP1 of RSS requires economy in the use of land and buildings. It states that
development plans should adopt a sequential approach to meeting housing needs as
follows: firstly, the effective use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban
areas; secondly, the use of previously developed land; and finally the development of
previously undeveloped land, where it would avoid areas of important open space, is well
located in relation to houses, jobs, other services and infrastructure and is or can be made
accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Policy DP1 of Draft RSS also encourages the effective use of land, buildings and
infrastructure and advocates the sequential approach to meeting development needs, as
outlined in Adopted RSS Policy DP1.
Planning Policy Statement Note 3: Housing (annex B), provides a definition of previously
development land:
‘Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure
(excluding agricultural or forestry buildings), and associated fixed surface infrastructure.
The definition covers the curtilage of the development. Previously developed land may
occur in both built up and rural settings.’
The whole site is considered to be previously developed land, as defined in Government
guidance such as Annex B of PPS3 (Housing).
The planning history highlighted above clearly demonstrates that development on this site
is considered acceptable. Moreover, the principle of a mixed-use development was not a
reason to refuse the previous outline proposal.
Therefore, I consider that the principle of development on the site to be appropriate and
established through the granting of the extant permission. It would accord with the
sequential approach to development, which prioritises the re-use of existing buildings and
previously developed land over the development of greenfield land, as set out in PPS1,
PPS3, Policy DP1 of RSS and Policy ST11 the UDP.
Principle of the Proposed Uses
The extant permission has established approval for office provision on this site. Therefore,
I consider that the principle of offices has been established.
Policy MX1 states that Salford Quays will be developed as a vibrant mixed-use area with a
broad range of uses and activities, and development within it will be required to support
this.
The site in question is located within the mixed use area MX1/3: Salford Quays. Policy
MX1 states that a variety of uses are appropriate in the area, and lists a number of
examples, including residential, offices and community facilities.
A number of criteria are used to determine whether the mix of uses on a particular site is
appropriate. The criteria listed under Policy MX1, include, maintaining a mix and balance
of uses throughout the mixed-use area, the contribution the scheme would make towards
securing activity throughout the day, and the prominence of the location particularly in
relation to key pedestrian and other transport routes.
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
The original outline permission identified the site for office use, therefore the incorporation
of office floorspace within the proposed development is acceptable in principle, with the
scale of office provision being broadly similar to that for which outline permission has
been granted. The inclusion of a proportion of apartments within the development is also
acceptable in principle, in line with MX1/3.
Density
Policy ST12 states that development within the regional centre, town centres, and close to
key public transport routes and interchanges will be required to achieve a high density
appropriate to the location and context.
Policy H1 of the UDP states that development should be built at an appropriate density, and
that in the mixed use areas this should not be less than 50 dwellings per hectare. This
standard may be varied in individual circumstances having regard to criteria A-H of the
policy. The residential density of the proposed development is approximately 400
dwellings per hectare. This is a high density, although given the sites access to the
Metrolink, the need to make the most efficient use of the site, and responding to the site’s
context (which is establishing a taller character through the implementation of planning
approvals) I consider that the density is appropriate in principle. However there is a need to
ensure for design to be of high quality. The design of the proposed development is
considered later in this report.
Housing Mix
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area. Criterion 1, of this policy states that all
new housing development will be required to contribute towards the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and
affordability.
”
“
Policy H2 of the adopted UDP is also relevant to the consideration of the scale of the
proposal. Whilst seeking to ensure that an adequate supply of new housing is provided
across the city in accordance with that set out in RSS, this policy seeks to restrict housing
development in areas where there is evidence of an unacceptable actual or potential
oversupply of housing . At the current time there is no clear evidence of an oversupply of
housing in this area. It is also important to take into consideration evidence from all levels
(national, regional and local), which suggests that household growth is likely to continue
and that in acknowledgement of this, the draft RSS is proposing to significantly increase
the level of annual housing provision for Salford. However, at present I consider that some
weight, albeit minimal, should be afforded to the draft RSS.
Policy HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance allows for residential developments
within the Regional Centre to consist wholly of apartments. This site is located within the
Regional Centre as defined in Figure 4.1 Policy Areas of the Housing Planning Guidance.
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Policy HOU7 of the Housing Planning Guidance indicates that such provision should
normally be in the form of social rented accommodation, unless otherwise agreed with the
Council.
Planning Guidance for Housing was adopted by the Council on the 20th December 2006.
The thrust of this guidance is to ensure a balanced mix of accommodation in accordance
with policy H1 of the UDP.
The residential accommodation proposed in this scheme would comprise of the following
apartment mix:
one bedroom apartments (21 in total) and range from 43.9 sq m to 60.9 sq m
two bedroom apartments (27 in total) and range from 60.5 sq m to 82.6 sq m
three bed apartments (9 in total) and range from 81.5 sq m to 113.7 sq m
Whilst the floor areas highlighted above are ranges, only 17 (all of which 1 bed room
apartments) would be less than 57 sq m. A total of 70.2% of the overall provision would be
greater than 57sq m in floor area.
I consider that the proposed mix and size of apartments is a further improvement on that of
the previous outline scheme. The mix was considered appropriate in that instance and was
not included as a reason for refusal.
The current scheme, exceeds 50% accommodation at 57sq m or greater and would provide
a range of apartments within the scheme. Therefore, I consider that the mix identified
above and having regard to the wider area is sufficient to satisfy the Planning Guidance for
Housing and policy H1 of the adopted UDP.
Affordable Housing
The city council’s Affordable Housing Needs Assessment (April 2006) indicates a
growing need for additional affordable housing provision within the city.
Policy H4 of the Adopted UDP states that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of
affordable housing to meet local needs, developers will be required to provide an element
of affordable housing on all sites over 1 hectare, or in housing developments of 25 or more
dwellings irrespective of the size of the site. The council would therefore be looking to
negotiate a proportion of affordable units somewhere in the region of 20%.
It is anticipated that these affordable units should be constructed by the developer and then
sold on to a suitable organisation approved by the city council (normally a Registered
Social Landlord) at an agreed discount rate sufficient to secure their involvement.
In this particular case a previous scheme has been submitted to and refused
(06/52962/OUT). That application was submitted prior to the adoption of the Housing
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Planning Guidance. As such, it was considered inappropriate to secure the provision of
affordable housing as the design and development of the scheme was substantially
complete. The previous scheme included little detail on the design and appearance of the
proposal. In essence, the current scheme provides that missing detail and that residential
provision is the same as that previously considered. The lack of affordable housing
provision was not included as a reason to refuse the previous scheme as set out above.
”
“
However, the adoption of the Housing Planning Guidance prior to the submission of this
scheme is a change in circumstance and a material consideration in the assessment of this
current application. The applicant has progressed the same scheme from that previously
refused, seeking to overcome the reasons for refusal. Therefore, I consider that, of
particular relevance is the final bullet point of policy HOU3 ‘Quantity of Affordable
Homes’, where it discusses when a lower proportion of affordable housing, or a lower
proportion of commuted sum may be appropriate. The bullet point states The scheme
was substantially developed before the adoption of this Guidance .
Given the progression of this scheme prior to the adoption of the Housing Planning
Guidance (refused scheme) and the amendments made in this current proposal, I consider
that, in this particular instance, the scheme was in fact substantially complete, therefore, I
do not consider it appropriate to secure affordable housing provision as part of this
application.
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 within the supporting information 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.
Design, Scale and Massing
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with
this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing
buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to be fully accessible to
all people, maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists to, through and around the
site, enable pedestrians to navigate their way through an area by providing appropriate
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
views, vistas and transport links, enable safe, direct and convenient access to public
transport facilities and other local amenities and minimise potential conflicts between
pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
Policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public
space, that public space must be designed to, have a clear role and purpose, responding to
established or proposed local economic, social, cultural and environmental needs, reflect
and enhance the character and identity of the area, form an integral part of, and provide an
appropriate setting for, surrounding developments be attractive, safe, uncluttered and
appropriately lit, be of an appropriate scale, connect to established pedestrian routes and
other public spaces and minimise, and make provision for, maintenance requirements.
Policy DES4 outlines that development which adjoins public space shall be designed to
have a strong and positive relationship with that space.
Policy DES5 outlines a number of circumstances where tall buildings will be permitted,
including: where the scale of the development is appropriate to its location; the location is
highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling; the buildings would positively
relate to and interact with the public realm; the buildings would be of the highest quality,
would make a positive addition to the skyline and would not detract from important views;
there would be no unacceptable overshadowing or overlooking; there would be no
unacceptable impact on microclimate, telecommunications activity, aviation safety, and
the development would be consistent with other UDP policies.
Policy 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.
Policy DES10 development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime,
anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime.
Policy DES11 requires the submission of a design statement with all major applications
explaining how the development takes account of the need for good design, the design
principles and design concept and how these are reflected in the development’s layout,
density, scale, visual appearance and landscaping, the relationship of the development to
its site and the wider context and how the development will meet the Council’s design
objectives.
The form of the building would comprise of two elements; a five storey element fronting
Trafford Road, rising to a maximum 12 storey. The taller element would be set in from
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Trafford Road and from both the northern and southern elevations. The top two floors
would also be set in from the main facades of the tower element.
The site to the south of this site does benefit from outline consent (05/50001/OUT). In that
instance outline consent was granted for the principle of an office building with a
floorspace of 4492 sq.m. and for means of access. The means of access is proposed from an
internal link road within the wider site not directly from Trafford Road. Whilst the
applicant did submit indicative plans to demonstrate how such floorspace could be
accommodated on the site, approval for the size, siting and design of the building was not
sought at that stage.
The site to the rear is currently under construction and the closest element would be seven
storey in height. The scale of buildings does increase further south along Trafford Road.
Further to the east, beyond the scheme currently under construction is the existing Ordsall
housing estate which is smaller in scale. Given the construction of the scheme between this
site and the Ordsall estate, I do not consider that the scale of this proposal would be
inappropriate within the context of these two developments.
On the lower building the ‘structural frame’ would be expressed externally. This would be
achieved by ‘cladding’ the steel or concrete frame with Portland stone cladding. Between
the frame elements would be high proportion of glazing giving the overall effect of a totally
glazed elevation.
The upper levels of the lower building are occupied by residential accommodation. Visual
treatment of these areas would differentiate the different uses and a second material –
terracotta rain-screen would be introduced. The applicant’s agent has provided a sample of
all the materials proposed. To further improve and provide a feature of the terracotta rain
screen elements, three shades of the same colour are now proposed. This would add
interest and provide a feature to the north and eastern elevation. The facades would be
partially set back to provide usable terraces, balconies or winter gardens.
The taller element of the building would follow the same design principles and would be
composed of essentially the same palette of materials but the elements would be smaller to
reflect the different use. The ‘second’ material would also play an important role in
helping to reduce the overall scale to reflect the residential use. The top floor again would
be set back to minimise the impact and provide a ‘termination’ to the tower.
To the southern element of the ground floor car parking would be provided. The remainder
of the ground floor fronting Trafford Road would include active frontage. Whilst consent
for landscaping is not sought at this stage, the applicant has indicated an area of
landscaping in front of the proposed car park to screen the car park. The applicant has also
agreed to include public art within this element of the Trafford Road elevation. I consider
that this would be an effective method to screen the car parking element adjacent to the
active ground floor element.
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Therefore, subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring samples of materials to be
approved (given the proposed amendments highlighted above) prior to the commencement
of development, I am satisfied that the proposed design and materials are acceptable.
Therefore, I consider that the scheme would accord with the policy highlighted above with
regard design, scale and massing.
Landscaping
Policy DES9 relates to landscaping and considers that development will be required to
incorporate hard and soft landscaping provision, where appropriate.
Landscaping is reserved for future consideration although the applicant has indicated an
area of landscaping along the Trafford Road elevation.
Effects of the development on neighbours
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity
of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
”
“
The third reason for refusal on the previous scheme (06/52962/OUT) states:
The proposal would not provide future occupiers with a sufficient level of amenity by
virtue of a lack of any private amenity space insufficient aspect and outlook contrary to
policy DES7 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan .
That scheme included apartments in close proximity to the common boundary and within a
suitable level of aspect. The applicant has re-configured the internal arrangements so that
each apartment has an appropriate aspect and outlook. The apartments located on the 3rd
and 4th floors to the south of the building (the two floors above the office provision in the
smaller element) would be closest to the common boundary. The scheme includes the
provision of winter gardens which would maximise the amount of light to the living areas
and provide direct access to two terraces off each of the bedrooms. I consider that this
layout would provide future occupiers with an appropriate level of amenity and would not
preclude the development opportunities for the neighbouring site.
The current scheme also includes 9 three bedroom accommodation. The applicant has
arranged some of the three bed provision at the bottom of the taller element so that private
gardens are available on the roof of the smaller element below. The applicant has also
agreed to enter into a section 106 agreement to provide open space elsewhere within the
locality. Planning obligations generally are discussed later in this report.
The site to the east (previously referred to as land to the rear of Ordsall Sports Centre) is
currently under construction. The element closest to this current proposal would be seven
storey and would maintain 19m separation. Given the city centre location of the site and
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
the nature of the development, it is not appropriate to apply the interface standards that are
used to guide development elsewhere within the city. Such concerns must also be
considered against the benefits of the scheme, namely the redevelopment of an underused
and largely unattractive site, the provision of a mixture of uses and the planning history for
office provision.
The Director of Environmental Services has assessed the submitted report and raises no
objection subject to the provision of conditions safeguard against noise and vibration.
In conclusion, I consider that the amendments made to this scheme and the inclusion of
additional information are sufficient to overcome the third reason to refuse planning
permission on the previous scheme. As such I am satisfied that the scheme accords with
the policies highlighted above with regard to residential amenity.
Car Parking and 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 – 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.
Appendix C ‘car parking standards’ of the adopted UDP sets a maximum car parking
standard of 1 space per 23 sq m of B1 office provision. Therefore, the maximum standard
would be 39 spaces. However, the site is highly accessible and in acknowledgement of
this, the total car parking provision for the whole scheme is 40 car parking spaces. Given
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
the proposed level, I have attached conditions requiring a travel plan to be provided, cycle
stores and details of the segregation of car parking provision.
I consider that, as a whole an appropriate level of parking is proposed given the close
proximity of public infrastructure and I consider that level proposed is sufficient to meet
the needs of the development, in full accordance with UDP Policy A10.
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 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
applicants intention to achieve a ‘very good’ 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 £196,512
and would breakdown as follows:
iii. Open Space Provision
iv. Public Realm, infrastructure and heritage
v. Construction training
79
£102,462
£85,500
£8,550
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
The applicant has agreed to a condition requiring a S106 agreement to be entered into to
secure the above obligation prior to the commencement of development.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with Policies H1, H8, R2 and DEV5 of the Adopted UDP, the applicant has
agreed to enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 for the payment of a total of £196,512. This would contribute to the provision of open
space in the vicinity.
The applicant has also agreed to a condition requiring public art to be incorporated into the
ground floor element which effectively screens the car par on part of the Trafford Road
elevation.
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied that the amended design is of a high quality and that the application would
not have any significant detrimental effect upon the amenity of future neighbouring
residents or on the surrounding area in general. I am satisfied that the proposed
development would continue to act as a catalyst for future successful development in this
area and that it would signify the City Council’s intent to accept a high quality
development. I am also satisfied that the level of on site parking is acceptable. I am
satisfied that the application complies with policies of the development plan as a whole.
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 £196,512 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:
I.
II.
III.
£102,462 for the provision and maintenance of open space;
£85,500 for the provision or improvement of public realm, infrastructure or heritage
features; and
£8,550 for training programmes for local construction workers.
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
Conditions
1. Standard Condition B01B reserved matters time limit
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) 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;
3. Notwithstanding the submitted sample board and 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.
4. 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.
5. Noise from any fixed plant and equipment ( including lifts and associated machinery)
on the site (LAeq,t) shall not exceed the background level (LA90,t) by more than -5dB
at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive properties at any time.
6. A scheme shall be submitted for approval in writing to the LPA to demonstrate how the
requirements of BS8233:1999 will be met in all commercial/residential areas. This
scheme shall supplement the Hepworth Acoustic report referenced:- Report No:
3833.1v1 dated March 2006 titled Proposed Mixed Development on Land at 211
Trafford Road, Salford: Assessment of Noise Impact, specifically Section 5 of the
submitted Report. The scheme shall detail individual glazing specifications and
associated acoustic performance requirements for each of the different facades of the
building and their various uses.
Prior to the first occupation of the building, a verification report shall be submitted in
writing to the LPA detailing all acoustic measures incorporated into the design as a
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
result of the previously approved scheme.
Once agreed, all approved mitigation measures shall be retained and maintained
thereafter.
7. A scheme shall be submitted for approval in writing to the LPA to demonstrate how
ventilation requirements will be met in all commercial/residential areas. This scheme
shall supplement the Hepworth Acoustic report referenced:- Report No: 3833.1v1
dated March 2006 titled Proposed Mixed Development on Land at 211 Trafford Road,
Salford: Assessment of Noise Impact, specifically Paragraph 5.12 of the submitted
Report.
The scheme shall detail individual ventilation specifications and associated acoustic
performance requirements for each of the different uses within the building.
Prior to the first occupation of the building, a verification report shall be submitted in
writing to the LPA detailing all alternative ventilation measures incorporated into the
design as a result of the previously approved scheme.
Once agreed, all approved mitigation measures shall be retained and maintained
thereafter.
8. No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the
Report) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground
contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and
assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act
1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The
investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and
safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and
landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological
systems and property. The investigation shall where appropriate include a risk
assessment and an options appraisal including the remedial strategy.
The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site
investigation survey.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including
its risk assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the
remedial strategy.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall
be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion
Report shall validate that all works were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the Local Planning Authority.
9. Prior to the commencement of development of the B1 commercial units a travel plan
relating to the B1 commercial units within each phase shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such travel plan shall include
objectives and targets, and, where appropriate, measures to promote and facilitate
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
public transport use, measures to reduce car use and its management, measures to
promote and facilitate cycling and walking, promotion of practices/facilities to reduce
the need to travel, monitoring and review mechanisms, travel plan coordination, and
provision of travel information and marketing. The initiatives contained within the
approved plan shall be implemented and shall be in place prior to the first occupation of
any of the B1 unit within each phase unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
10. Prior to first occupation of any use a scheme detailing the amount of car parking
allocated for residential purposes and B1 office purposes shall be submitted for the
written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Once agreed the parking spaces
provided shall be used at all times thereafter for the parking of vehicles associated to
each use in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
11. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the
undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and
Country Planning Act, 1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act, 1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning
Authority, and the Local Planning Authority has given its approval in writing. The
planning obligation will provide that commuted sums as required by Policies H1, H8,
R2 and 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.
12. Prior to first occupation of any B1 office or residential unit hereby approved a scheme
detailing public art provision shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall detail an implementation programme. The
development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme and
programme.
13. No development shall commence until a scheme of recycling facilities for the
apartments contained within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full
prior to the occupation of any apartment.
14. 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.
15. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
local planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement
in relation to provision of permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials
and delivery and collection of equipment, provision and use of on-site parking for
contractors' and workpeople's vehicles, wheelwashing facilities, street sweeping and no
development or activities related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site in
contravention of such site operating statement.
16. No development shall commence until a scheme of cycling and motorcycling facilities
for the apartments contained within the site has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme as is approved shall be
implemented in full prior to the occupation of any apartment.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. 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.
5. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
9. In accordance with Policy A1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
10. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage
11. 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.
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
5th July 2007
12. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
13. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
14. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
15. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
16. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
86
5th July 2007
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
87
5th July 2007
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
88
5th July 2007