PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
APPLICATION No:
2nd August 2007
06/53565/OUT
APPLICANT:
S Warriah
LOCATION:
91-93 Greengate Salford M3 7NG
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for an eight storey mixed use
development comprising 145sq.m retail floorspace at ground
floor level and 14 two and three bedroom apartments with car
parking for six cars at semi basement level
WARD:
Ordsall
INTRODUCTION
This application lies within the Exchange Greengate master plan area that is subject to planning
guidance in the recently approved Exchange Greengate Planning Guidance document.
The Exchange Greengate area is a paradox - the historic core of Salford and just five minutes stroll
from Selfridges and Harvey Nichols yet dominated by commuter car parking, empty and
dilapidated buildings, dead and semi derelict space and vacant and overgrown land. The Exchange
Greengate Planning Guidance has been developed and approved by the City Council to guide the
transformation of the area and to establish it as a dynamic new part of the city centre.
It is intended that the transformation will combine high quality commercial and residential
properties with leisure uses, dramatic public spaces and new waterside environments. The
guidance aims to ensure that new development is not only of exceptional design quality but also
that it is integrated with the surrounding area. It also provides an important contribution to the
successful planning of the area in a situation where there are a multiplicity of land ownerships and
where a number of different developers will be bringing forward individual sites. The Guidance
will assist in ensuring that future applications within Exchange Greengate are dealt with in a
consistent manner.
Over the next 15 years the Exchange Greengate area has the capacity to deliver over 3.25 million
sq.ft of development floorspace, 2,600 new homes and at the heart of the area a new urban park that
is the subject of application 06/53597/FUL. The Guidance states that all developments that are
brought forward with the Exchange Greengate area will be required to contribute proportionately to
the cost of public realm and public transport provision.
The Exchange Greengate public realm project is currently the subject of an economic appraisal and
implementation study that is being undertaken to investigate the justification for English
Partnerships support. It is intended that the capital costs of the public realm (works and land
1
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
acquisition) will be funded from a variety of sources, including public sector funding from English
Partnerships and Salford City Council and private sector funding from developers through Section
106 contributions. In addition, funding for the proposed new footbridge over the Irwell has been
included within the submission for Big Lottery Fund investment for the Irwell City Park project.
It is intended that delivery of the public realm is sub-divided into two phases as follows:
i) Phase 1 - the Bridge, Urban Cove and Greengate Link, which could potentially be
implemented in conjunction with the adjacent development, commencement in 2008 and
completion 2010; and
ii) Phase 2 - Greengate Square, commencement in 2010 and
completion in 2012.
The appraisal work to date has shown that the high quality public realm will be important in order
to ensure that the Exchange Greengate area is developed to a very high standard and that the
economic, social and environmental benefits are maximised.
It is proposed that Salford City Council will own the unadopted areas of public realm and will be
responsible for ensuring that it is properly maintained and managed. The City Council would
sub-contract with a management company owned by the occupiers of the developments who would
undertake the maintenance works. It is envisaged that the maintenance and replacement/renewal
funding will be secured from a number of sources including potentially ground rents, Salford City
Council and commuted sums negotiated via Section 106 contributions.
It is clear to the City Council that the delivery of the significant public realm is likely to depend in
part on very significant contributions arising from planning obligations, at a level significantly
exceeding the requirements of the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document. For
this reason it is considered that in this area the focus of such contributions will have to be on public
realm and highways/transport issues, and will be subject to the conclusion of negotiations between
the applicants, the City Council, Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company and English
Partnerships who will be providing initial funding on the basis that this would be reimbursed from
subsequent Section 106 contributions.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site covers an area of less than 0.02hectare and is bounded to the north by Greengate, to the east
by Boond Street, to the west by 89 Greengate beyond which is the first part of a new road (to be
called Boond Street) beyond which is the Abito development and to the south by surface car
parking.
The site is currently occupied by a three storey building that is derelict and was last used over
twelve years ago.
2
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
The application is submitted in outline with all matters reserved for further consideration.
Approval is therefore sought at this stage for the principle of an eight- storey mixed use scheme
comprising 145sq.m of retail floorspace at ground floor with 14 two and three bedroom apartments
with car parking for six cars at semi-basement level.
SITE HISTORY
The site was included within the application submitted by Ask Developments (06/53595/OUT) that
was approved by the Panel in June 2007 subject to entering into a legal agreement. This Ask
application proposed the comprehensive redevelopment of the wider area.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services - The Environmental Appraisal Report submitted
with the application shows that the historical land uses within, and surrounding the site have been
extremely varied. It is advised that sampling of both the made ground and natural strata are
undertaken to determine the extent of potential contamination. Furthermore it is recommended that
leachate and/or groundwater sampling are conducted to ensure that there is no risk of contamination
to controlled water sources. This is due to the site overlaying a major aquifer and the River Irwell
forming the eastern boundary.
Environment Agency - Initially objected to the application on the grounds that the site lies within
a high-risk area liable to flood and that the floor levels were unacceptably low. Following
submission of a revised flood risk assessment that the Environment Agency considers is
satisfactory and meets with their approval it is now considered that permission can be granted
subject to a condition regarding floor levels.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company - the URC aims to transform Central Salford
over the next 20 years, guided by a new vision and regeneration framework. The site lies within the
Exchange, Greengate area which is one of the URC’s key priority areas identified in its business
plan and vision and regeneration framework - part of the proposed new corporate centre for the city.
Other adjoining priority projects include the traffic calming of Chapel Street, the development of
Salford Central Station and improved accessibility along the River Irwell.
Planning guidance has been approved by the City Council to establish the Exchange Greengate area
as a dynamic new part of the regional centre. The areas 13 hectares of vacant and underused land
and buildings will be transformed into a distinctive and diverse mixed use urban quarter, combining
high quality commercial and residential properties with leisure uses, dramatic public spaces and
waterside environments and with new pedestrian connections into the regional centre. The area
will contribute to the growth of the regional centre’s office development. This application fits well
within these strategic objectives.
The Guidance includes six principal sites which will form the basis for the regeneration of the
Exchange Greengate area, each to be redeveloped in accordance with the detailed planning
considerations set out in the Guidance. This application covers site 2 in the Guidance. The URC is
3
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
directly involved in delivering the primary area of public realm within Exchange Greengate. This
application relates well to the proposed Greengate square in respect of its massing and design,
providing a strong edge to its western boundary.
The proposed uses are acceptable and consistent with the URC’s vision for Exchange Greengate.
Whilst not applying for a particular residential mix, it is understood that the applicant has agreed to
reflect the provisions of the City Council’s Housing Planning Guidance in respect to floorspace and
apartment size. The URC considers that this is important in providing a broad mix of dwellings to
achieve a diverse and quality living environment in the heart of the City Centre.
This application has been the subject of long negotiation with the City Council and the Central
Salford URC and a number of design and other amendments have been made to address planning
issues. The URC now strongly supports the application, which accords closely with the URC’s
vision for the Exchange Greengate area. Agreement has now been reached on the level of S106
contributions from this proposal to support the provision of the primary public realm in the
Exchange Greengate area. It is also considered that the S106 agreement should additionally secure
the future of the Collier Street baths.
United Utilities - Several public sewers cross the site and UU will not allow building over them
and will require an access strip of no less than 6m in width, measuring at least 3m either side of the
centre line of the sewer, for maintenance or replacement. Therefore a modification of the site
layout, or a diversion of the affected public sewers at the applicant’s expense, may be necessary.
To establish if sewer diversions are feasible, the applicant must discuss this at an early stage as a
lengthy lead in period may be required if a sewer diversion proves to be acceptable. It is unclear if
the existing sewer network has the capacity to accommodate this development. Flow investigations
will be required before this may be confirmed.
The site must be drained on a separate system, with only foul drainage connected into the foul
sewer. Surface water should discharge to the watercourse/soak away/surface water sewer and may
require the consent of the Environment Agency. If surface water is allowed to be discharged to the
public sewerage system we may require the flow to be attenuated to a maximum discharge rate
determined by United Utilities.
The developer should be made aware that there is a need to reinforce the primary electricity
network in Salford and United Utilities are in discussion with Salford City Council regarding this
matter.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit - have no objections to the proposed
development.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbouring properties have been notified of the application.
4
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
85 and 95 Greengate
Ask Developments
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the planning application publicity.
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS3 Housing, PPS6 Planning for Town Centres,
PPG13 Transport, PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings, DP3 Quality in New Development, DP4
Promoting Sustainable Economic Growth, Competitiveness and Social Inclusion, UR1 Urban
Renaissance, UR2 An Inclusive Social Infrastructure, UR10 Greenery, Urban Greenspace and the
Public Realm, SD1 The North-West Metropolitan Area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific Policies: MX1 Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other Policies: ST1 Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods, ST6 Major Trip Generating
Development, ST8 Environmental Quality, ST11 Location of New Development, DES1
Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES3 Design of Public Space, DES7
Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES10 Design and Crime, DES11 Design Statements, H1
Provision of New Housing Development, A1 Transport Assessment and Travel Plans, A2 Cyclists,
Pedestrians and the Disabled, A8 Impact of the Development on the Local Highway Network, A10
Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Development, E3 Knowledge Capital,
EN19 Flood Risk and Surface Water, EN22 Resource Conservation, S1 Retail and Leisure
Development Within Town and Neighbourhood Centres.
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Regional Development Principles, MCR2 Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester
City Region, MCR4 Northern Part of the Manchester City Region
OTHER LOCAL PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
The Exchange, Greengate Planning Guidance
Since the 1980s the City Council has only been able to make limited interventions in the Greengate
area to address the ongoing decline of this part of the City. The combination of Government policy,
new landowners, increasing developer interest, the rebuilding of Manchester City Centre and, most
5
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
importantly, the establishment of the Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company means that
there is now the opportunity to secure the major transformation of Greengate.
A Development Framework for the area was approved by the City Council in 2005. The
Framework’s overall vision for the Exchange Greengate area is for a new city centre place which
celebrates the River Irwell and reconnects Salford and Manchester. It would be a dynamic mixed
use destination in its own right, ensuring that the city centre as a whole continues to grow and
contributing to its commercial, residential and cultural offer.
The Exchange, Greengate Planning Guidance was adopted by the City Council in January 2007. It
sets out the guidelines that the City Council will use as a material consideration in determining
planning applications in the area. It establishes a set of principles to ensure an appropriate mix of
uses and high design quality in new development.
Housing Planning Guidance
Housing Planning Guidance was adopted in December 2006. The purpose of the Guidance is to
ensure that the residential development coming forward in Salford contributes to establishing and
maintaining sustainable communities, tackles the specific housing and related issues that face
Salford, and helps to deliver the vision and strategy of the UDP, the Housing Strategy and the
Community Plan.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the development in this
location is acceptable, whether the application as a whole is of sufficiently high quality to justify
approval, whether the height, scale and massing of the buildings are acceptable, whether the
development accords sufficiently with both the original approved development framework and the
more recently approved planning guidance, the impact of the development on neighbours and on
the environment in general, whether there is sufficient car parking and whether the development
sufficiently contributes to the provision of open space.
Principle of the Development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focussed within the
North-West Metropolitan area, which includes Salford.
National planning policy as contained in PPS3 on Housing is also relevant. It highlights the need to
develop previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate for higher densities in
accessible locations.
Draft Regional Spatial Strategy published in January 2006 proposes a significant increase in the
housing requirement in Salford with a threefold increase in the annual requirement for new
dwellings from 530 to 1600 per annum. Whilst the provision of housing is relevant in the
consideration of this scheme it should be noted that little weight can be afforded to the draft
Regional Spatial Strategy at this time.
6
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
Policy ST11 calls for development sites to be brought forward in the correct order. The four level
hierarchy of suitable sites begins with the reuse and conversion of existing buildings followed by
previously developed land in an accessible location that is well related to housing, employment,
services and infrastructure.
The application site lies within policy area MX1 which seeks to create a vibrant mixed use area
with a broad range of uses and activities and the policy states that development within the area will
be required to support this. Uses identified as being appropriate for the area include housing,
offices, hotels, retail and food and drink uses and cultural uses. The reasoned justification to the
policy states that this part of the City will be increasingly seen as a key quarter of Manchester city
centre, with improved physical and functional connections to the rest of the city centre.
Policy EG1 of the Guidance expands on policy MX1 and states that the regeneration of Greengate
will result in a new and vibrant part of the city centre with a range of functions including
commercial, residential, cultural, retail and leisure uses. It will be characterised by exceptional
architecture, high quality public spaces and a distinctive waterside frontage with new connections
between the two cities. It will be an area where there is on-street activity and pedestrian life and
movement.
Policy EG2 of the Guidance states that the development of Greengate will provide a mix of uses to
help create a vibrant and interesting community which has activity during the day and evening
throughout the year and which would be expected in a new city centre quarter.
The site is previously developed land and is in a location that is highly accessible to a full range of
services and facilities and development is positively encouraged by the recently approved
Exchange, Greengate Planning Guidance. I therefore consider the principle of development in this
location is both acceptable and desirable.
The proposal includes a mix of residential and retail uses. I consider that this proposed mix of uses
is acceptable and in accordance with policies MX1 and EG2.
Design - Height, Scale and Massing
In considering the design of the development it is important to note that the application is in outline
with all matters reserved. Detailed issues of design, layout and appearance are therefore to be
determined at a later stage. However, the applicant has been required to submit information with
regard to issues of height, scale and massing. Therefore the combination of this information, the
contents of the design and access statement and the information submitted by the applicant relating
to the matters for determination set out a series of broad design principles that must be adhered to
during design development and as such must be considered at this stage of the application process.
Policy DES1 states that developments will be required to respond to their physical context, respect
the positive character of the local area and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness via
a number of factors that include the scale and size of the buildings, their distinctiveness in the street
scene, the relationship to existing buildings and other features that contribute to townscape quality,
7
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
the impact on, and quality of, views and vistas, the potential impact of the proposed development
on the redevelopment of adjacent sites and the desirability of protecting existing building lines or
allowing discontinuities that may improve or enrich the existing townspace and public space.
Policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of public space, that it must be
designed to, amongst other things; have a clear role and purpose; reflect and enhance the character
and identity of the area; provide an appropriate setting for surrounding developments; be safe,
uncluttered and appropriately lit; be of an appropriate scale; connect to established pedestrian
routes and; minimise, and make provision for, maintenance requirements.
Policy DES5 states that tall buildings will be permitted where they meet a number of criteria.
Those criteria include that the scale of the development is appropriate to its context and location;
that the location is highly accessible to public transport, walking and cycling; that the building
would relate positively to and interact well with the adjacent public realm; that the building would
be of the highest quality design; that the building would make a positive addition to the skyline and
would not detract from important views and that there would be no unacceptable impact on the
setting of a listed building or on the character or appearance of a conservation area.
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 and height, the
relationship of the development to its setting and the wider context and how the development will
meet the Council’s design objectives.
Policy EG8 of the Guidance states that the Exchange will take on the established urban form of
Manchester city centre with its dense and compact city blocks and regular street grid. The key
principles of the proposed urban structure are set out within the Guidance. The Guidance states that
the indicative heights contained within the document are not prescriptive but are a broad indication
of what may be acceptable and that the actual heights considered acceptable will be dependent on a
full evaluation of the proposals received.
Policy EG9 states that the city centre’s urban design heritage is characterised by the Victorian and
Edwardian approach of using buildings to dominate corners and command the street. New
development should recognise this characteristic by respecting existing building lines which will
normally mean building to the back of pavement and reinforcing corner plots.
Policy EG15 states the Exchange will adopt the street pattern that is set out in the Design
Framework.
This outline scheme differs from the proposals outlined in the framework document by providing
additional height in the two towers proposed on the Trinity Way frontage. The Guidance though
does indicate that this additional height may be acceptable. The other buildings heights conform
with both the original framework document and the approved planning guidance in that they are
between four and eight storeys in height, with the lower buildings being located adjacent to Listed
Buildings, rising to ten storeys where buildings front on to the proposed new Greengate square.
8
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
The proposals comply with the Guidance in that the height of the proposed building sits within the
four to eight storeys outlined within the Guidance. As well as this the detailed siting has been
altered so that the proposed building does not conflict with the proposed road pattern set out in the
Guidance.
The application is submitted in outline only and I am satisfied that other detailed matters can be
adequately dealt with at reserved matters stage.
Housing Mix
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced
mix of dwellings within the local area. The policy goes on to state 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 HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance states that within the Regional Centre, the very
high level of accessibility, the scale of the existing buildings, and the need to support that area’s
development as a vibrant city centre location means that apartments will normally be the most
appropriate form of housing provision.
Policy HOU2 states that where apartments are proposed they should provide a broad mix of
dwelling sizes, both in terms of the number of bedrooms and the net residential floorspace of the
apartments. Small dwellings (i.e studios and one bedroom apartments) should not predominate and
a significant proportion of three bedroom apartments should be provided wherever practicable.
The application is submitted in outline but approval is sought for the number of apartments. There
would be two apartments per floor and I am satisfied therefore, on the basis of the plot size and
indicative material submitted with the application, that 50% of apartments would have a floor area
of more than 57sq.m.
I consider that the mix identified above broadly conforms with Housing Planning Guidance and
with policy H1 of the UDP.
Affordable Housing
There is no requirement for affordable housing in this instance due to the size of the site.
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 closest existing neighbours to the towers are those in the Abito apartments. This is a ten storey
building and it would be on the opposite side of the new Boond Street by this proposed eight storey
building. The Abito building is close to its boundaries and all apartments face out on all four sides
of the building which has a central atrium. This proposed building would lie at the junction of
9
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
Greengate and the newly aligned Boond Street. The east elevation would be 10m from the Abito
building.
The Exchange Greengate Planning Guidance states that the area will take on the
established urban form of Manchester city centre with its dense and compact city blocks and
regular street grid. It goes on to state that the generally narrow street widths in Greengate lend
themselves to predominantly six storey building heights rising to ten storeys adjoining public open
spaces and reducing to three/four storeys around historic buildings. It is a feature of the Abito
building that the whole frontage of each apartment is fully glazed. It is impossible in these
circumstances to achieve the distances that would normally be considered necessary to ensure that
there is no significant loss of privacy or overlooking. I am mindful that the Abito building was
developed with the knowledge that it would be at the centre of the Exchange Greengate
development and that neighbouring buildings would be close by. I am satisfied therefore that in
these circumstances, these distances are acceptable. It will be necessary though at reserved matters
stage to ensure that the buildings that surround the Abito building are designed and detailed in such
a manner to ensure that direct overlooking and loss of privacy is minimised as far as practicable.
I am mindful also that City Council has approved the Ask proposal that was for a six storey building
in the same position..
Highways, Parking and Circulation
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, other than for disabled
provision.
Policy DES2 states that the design and layout of new development will be required to satisfy a
number of criteria that include ensuring that the development is fully accessible to all people,
including the disabled and others with limited or impaired mobility; maximising the movement of
pedestrians and cyclists to, through and around the site, through the provision of safe and direct
routes; enable pedestrians to orientate themselves and navigate through an area by providing
appropriate views, vistas and visual links; enable safe, direct and convenient access to public
transport facilities and other local amenities such as retail and community facilities including,
where appropriate, the incorporation of a bus route or turning facility within the site; and minimise
potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users, for example by incorporating
speed reduction measures and through the careful design of car parking areas.
Policy EG4 of the Guidance states that new transport networks and associated developments should
achieve a balance between ensuring that it is as easy as possible to get into Greengate whilst
minimising the impact on people being able to move around the area itself. It goes on to state that a
major objective is to encourage a switch to public transport to reduce the impact of the car.
The application is in outline only but approval is sought for six semi-basement parking spaces.
Given the location of the proposal close to the regional centre I am satisfied that the level of car
parking is acceptable. I have attached a condition regarding the provision of cycle lockers and
stands.
10
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
Sustainability
Policy EG5 of the Guidance states that all proposals for new building within the area should accord
with the principles of sustainable development and should make a positive contribution to the
delivery of a sustainable environment.
Policy EG13 of the Guidance states that new development should take into consideration the
principles of sustainable construction and energy efficiency. The Guidance goes on to say that all
developments should achieve an ideal EcoHomes rating of ‘excellent’ and that if an ‘excellent’
rating cannot be achieved then a minimum rating of ‘very good’ must be achieved and the City
Council must be provided with an explanation as to why ‘excellent’ has not been achieved.
The applicant states that the development will achieve a ‘very good’ rating. As it is the City
Council’s policy to seek an excellent rating I have attached a condition in accordance with the
above policy.
Open Space Provision
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open
space within housing developments.
The Planning Obligations SPD was approved by the City Council in March 2007. It confirms that
planning obligations should satisfy the five tests that are set out in Circular 05/2005: Planning
Obligations. Planning obligations should be:
i) relevant to planning;
ii) necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms;
iii) directly related to the proposed development;
iv) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and
v) reasonable in all other aspects
The SPD points out that planning obligations that do not meet the tests are not necessarily unlawful
but where they are being offered by a developer they should be given very limited weight when
determining a planning application. This is based on the principle set out in Circular 05/2005 that
planning permissions must not be bought or sold.
This application is in outline only and the number of dwellings and the number of bedspaces is not
known at this stage. The SPD sets out the requirements regarding planning obligations. This states
that there should be a contribution of £1,850 per dwelling plus £598 per bedspace for three
bedroom apartments and £1,850 per dwelling plus £658 for apartments of two bedrooms or less
with £23.50 per square meter of non-residential floorspace. The applicant has agreed in principle to
enter into a legal agreement in accordance with these figures set out in the SPD. However, the SPD
states that lower or higher commuted sums may be appropriate in individual circumstances. It
states that there will be situations where the value of any planning obligation may need to be
significantly higher than the average figures set out. The SPD sets out a circumstance where this
might be necessary, for example where a development would attract a large number of visitors and
therefore would need to provide a higher standard of public realm in the surrounding area.
11
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
I consider that the Exchange Greengate area is one such site where higher levels of contribution are
required given the amount and quality of public realm provision that is proposed and the highway
improvements envisaged. I also consider that a common approach should be taken to all
developments within the Greengate area unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
In dealing with the previous Greengate applications 06/53595/OUT and 06/53596/OUT, the
applicant argued that a substantial sum was being invested in the public realm of both applications
and in particular to be provided by the scheme proposed in application 06/53596/OUT. The
applicant stated that their own contribution to public realm within their own application sites
reached £3.5million. This was in addition to the contribution that they were making to the wider
public realm in Exchange Greengate that was identified under application 06/53597/FUL and
which was estimated to be in the region of £7million.
In order to achieve consistency this approach will be followed on all subsequent applications within
the Exchange Greengate area where the sums set out in the SPD will be a minimum contribution
made directly to fund the major public realm identified under application 05/53597/FUL and where
additional contributions to the approximate value of 50% of the SPD baseline sums will be sought
depending on the amount of public realm that is provided within subsequent individual
developments so that where little, or no public realm is provided, additional contributions are made
direct to the funding, management and future maintenance of the major new public realm areas.
I am satisfied therefore that, in addition to the sums set out in the Supplementary Planning
Guidance, the applicant in this instance should contribute significant monies towards public open
space within the Exchange Greengate area that represent an approximate 50% increase on top of the
figures set out in the SPD. This would be the same as is being contributed by the applicant on the
two schemes outlined above and which were approved by the Panel in June 2007.
Design and Crime
Policy DES10 states that development will only be permitted where it is designed to discourage
crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime, and support personal and property security.
Crime prevention measures should not be at the expense of the overall design quality, and
proposals will be permitted where they have a hostile appearance or engender a fortress-type
atmosphere.
Policy EG14 of the Guidance states that new development should take into consideration the
principles of ‘Secured by Design’.
The Police Architectural Liaison Unit has raised no objections but I have attached a condition to
ensure that the future development meets ‘Secured by Design’ standards.
VALUE ADDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with policy H8 and the Planning Obligations SPD, the applicant has agreed to enter
into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In summary it
is the full financial contribution set out in the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning
12
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
Document plus an additional approximate 50% contribution on top of this sum. This would largely
contribute to the provision of public realm, public transport improvements and highway
improvements within the Exchange Greengate area. I consider that these represent considerable
added value to the City Council.
CONCLUSION
There would be significant investment in public realm, open space and infrastructure. A number of
off-site highway works, including the provision of a new junction onto Trinity Way, would also be
secured as part of this development. The likely impacts of the development on neighbours and on
the environment in general have been assessed and I am satisfied that, subject to a number of
conditions, there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on any interest of acknowledged
importance as a result of this application. A significant financial contribution towards major public
realm works in the Exchange Greengate area will be made.
I am satisfied that the proposed development is acceptable and accords with the policies of the
development plan and the Exchange Greengate Planning Guidance.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below once the
Section 106 has been signed, and:
i.
ii.
iii.
that the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be authorised to enter into a
legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure
the payment of a contribution to the implementation of environmental improvements in the
local area, provision of open space in the local area and improvements to public transport;
and highway improvements respectively;
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning
permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject
to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal
agreement.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition B01B reserved matters time limit
13
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
a) access;
b) appearance;
c) landscaping;
d) layout; and
e) scale.
3. 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 and street sweeping and no development or activities related
or incidental thereto shall take place in contravention of such site operating statement.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the
nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall
include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and
controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions
on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and
landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and
property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior
to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained
within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to the first occupation
of any unit of accommodation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the Local Planning Authority.
5. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the
disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved
details.
14
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
6. Prior to the commencement of development an assessment shall be submitted for written
approval to the Local Planning Authority which details the levels of internal noise likely to be
generated from the proposed commercial uses. This assessment shall identify and determine
noise mitigation measures required to protect the amenity of adjoining noise sensitive
properties (the residential properties above). Any noise mitigation measures identified by the
assessment shall be implemented prior to the commencement of any of the commercial uses
and retained thereafter.
7. A scheme for the provision of recycling facilities within the site shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the
development. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any
dwelling and shall be maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
8. Unless otherwise agtreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
commencement of the development a scheme demonstrating a BREEAM or Eco-Homes
"excellent" rating shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
9. No development/demolition shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation
of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation
that has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
10. Standard Condition F02X
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R005B
4. Standard Reason R028B
5. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. Standard Reason R024B
15
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
7. Standard Reason R024B
8. To ensure that the development accords with sustainability principles in accordance with
Unitary Development Plan policy EN22.
9. To secure archaeology interests on the site in accordance with policy CH5 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
10. Standard Reason R013B
APPLICATION No:
07/54146/FUL
APPLICANT:
Morson International Retirement Benefit Scheme
LOCATION:
Stableford Hall Stableford Avenue Eccles M30 8AP
PROPOSAL:
Siting of two temporary single storey portacabins at rear of
premises
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the siting of two portacabins at Stableford Hall, Eccles, for a temporary
period of 2 years. The applicant originally submitted the application for the siting of a two storey
portacabin. Following discussions with the applicant, involving the City Council’s conservation
officer and the case officer, amended plans have been submitted seeking permission for the siting of
two single storey portacabins.
One portacabin would be 3.3m wide and 7.5m in length, and the other would be 10.3 in length and
3.2m wide. The applicant has stated on the application form that the portacabins would be
constructed from metal / fibre glass, finished in buff, with colours to be agreed. They would be
located to the side/ rear of the main building in an area accessed from the main staff car park.
The Design and Access Statement accompanying the application states that the Morson Group who
occupy Stableford Hall need additional space to accommodate files, and also a staff canteen area.
This would allow extra space in the main building for the company to employ additional staff to
support existing and proposed acquisitions within the next 12-18 months. It is proposed that an
additional ten staff would be employed at the site as a result of the proposed development. The
16
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
company will shortly be submitting an application for a new office headquarters in the city, and
have scheduled 18 months for building work and the planning application process. The intention is
that Stableford Hall will be vacated once this has been constructed, and this is why the proposed
portacabins are only required for a temporary period.
The proposed portacabins would be located in the Monton Green Conservation Area (UDP Policy
CH3/7), and sited adjacent to and within the grounds of the Grade II listed Stableford Hall (Monton
Memorial Schools). The proposed development would also be in close proximity to the grounds of
the Grade II* listed Monton Unitarian Church.
PUBLICITY
The following addresses have been notified:
Churchill Place, Golfview Drive
Flats 1, 3 and 5, Churchill Place, Golfview Drive
Woodlea, Stableford Avenue
Flats 1-8, Woodlea, Stableford Avenue
Worsley Golf Club, Stableford Avenue
The Old School House, Stableford Avenue
Monton Unitarian Church, Monton Green
A site notice and press notice have been published.
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received which has been signed by six residents of Woodlea,
raising the following concerns:
Parking levels;
Access to properties; and
Highway safety.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific Policies: CH3 – Works within conseravtion areas
Other Policies: CH2 – Development affecting the setting of a listed building
DES1 – Respecting context
A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new
developments
17
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issues related to this application are whether the proposed development would affect the
setting of listed buildings, the impact on the Conservation Area, and also traffic generation /
parking requirements as a result of the development.
Impact on the Conservation Area / Listed Buildings
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 CH2 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that affect the
setting of a listed building.
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:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
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
The proposed development would be for a maximum of 2 years, and I am satisfied that it would not
have an unacceptable imapct on the setting of either Monton Church or Stableford Hall, especially
given the temporary nature of the proposed development and the siting in relation to the street
scene.
As amended, the proposed portacabins would not be a highly visible feature within the
conservation area, being sited to the rear / side of Stableford Hall and being shielded from the street
(Stableford Avenue) by a 2.5m wall and the building itself. There would only be a minimal view of
the portacbins from the churchyard, given that there is a drop in land from the churchyard to
Stableford Hall of 2.5m, and that the portcbains themselves are 2.57m in height. Notwithstanding
this, trees partly screen the proposed development site from the churchyard.
The applicant has confirmed that the portacabins would be in buff material and that the colour of
the portcabins would match that of the brickwork of Stableford Hall. I am satisfied that the
proposed materials would be approproate to both the location and type of development, for this
temporary period. Although the proposed development would not enhance the character of the
conseravtion area, I am satified that the impact would not be unacceptable, especially given that the
permission can be time limited for a maximum period of 2 years. The City Council’s conseravtion
18
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
officer considers the proposed development to be acceptable, and has recommended that the
application be approved.
Highways and Parking
A letter of objection has been received from reasidents of Woodlea, on Stableford Avenue, that has
been signed by six residents. They have raised issues with regards to access to their property, and
highway safety.
The applicant has confirmed that 100 people currently work at the site, and that there are 47 car
parking spaces to the rear of the building and also 32 along Stableford Avenue (which is owned by
the applicants), giving a total of 79 spaces. Three spaces would be lost as a result of the siting of the
portacaians.
The appliant has also confirmed that they plan to reinstate the forecourt to the front of the building
to recover lost spaces. The proposed development would create space for an additional 10 staff, and
it estimated by the applicant that only around five of these would be car drivers, with staff being
recruited locally. In addition, it is stated that around 30-35 staff are either part time or are regularly
away from the office on business, and that the company are pursuing home working. Worsley Golf
Club have also informed me in writing that Morson’s have recently been allocated four parking
spaces, available during office hours (Monday to Friday), within the golf club car park. The
submitted Design and Access statement states that the site is located in close proximity to Parrin
Lane, Green Lane and Monton Road, all of which have good bus services to a number of
destinations.
Taking into account the information supplied by the applicant, and additional provision within the
grounds of Worsley Golf Club, I am satisfied that the temporary loss of three car parking spaces
and an addiiotonal 10 staff (of whom an estimated five would be car users), would not result in an
unacceptable impact in highway safety.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on
the character of the Monton Green Conservation area and would not unacceptably affect the setting
of Monton Unitarian Church and Stableford Hall (Monton Memorial Schools). In addition I do not
consider that there would be unacceptable impact in highway terms.
The proposed development would complies with UDP Policies CH2, CH3, and DES1. I therefore
recommend that this application should be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
19
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
1. The portacabins hereby permitted shall be removed on or before the expiration of a period
ending 2 years from the date of decision when the site shall be restored to its condition
immediately prior to the commencement of development, unless a further permission is granted
by the Local Planning Authority.
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be
used for the walls and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials,
unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004B
2. Standard Reason R004B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This permission relates to amended plans received 25th June 2007, showing two single storey
portacabins.
2. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
3. The applicant is advised that their site lies within 250m of a former landfill site. In the event
that landfill gas is migrating, suitable precautions need to be undertaken to avoid the ingress of
landfill gas into the new extension or existing house. It is strongly advised that the detailed
design specification incorporates suitable measures to mitigate against the ingress of landfill
gas. Any measures would be expected to conform to the standards contained in the 1990
Building research Establishment Report "Construction of new buildings on gas-contaminated
land".
APPLICATION No:
07/54744/FUL
20
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
APPLICANT:
P Leigh
LOCATION:
569 Manchester Road Worsley M27 9QL
PROPOSAL:
Retention of a new dwelling including single storey rear element
and dormer to front / rear elevation
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application is for the retention of an end-terraced dwelling in Wardley, Swinton. The original
property was redcently demolished and rebuilt without planning permission. It is part of a row of
six terraces that extend to the east. To the north of the site is a public house; there are apartments to
the south (Bellam Court) and apartments to the west (Wardley Mews).
This application relates to the retention of a new dwelling including single storey element and
dormer to front / rear elevation, at 569 Manchester Road, Worsley. There is currently a two storey
element at the rear. A Design and Access statement has been submitted in support of the proposal.
SITE HISTORY
An application was received in July 2005 for the erection of a two storey rear extension to 569
Manchester Road (05/51070/HH). The property was demolished before the application was
determined and so the application was invalidated.
A complaint was subsequently made relating to the demolition of the property and a planning
application for the retention of what was being built was subsequently submitted in December 2005
(05/51931/FUL). This was refused on 15th June 2006. The application was refused on the basis
that:
“The rear two storey element of the new dwelling seriously injures the amenity of neighbouring
residents living at 565, 567 and 571 Manchester Road by reason of its size and siting which is
contrary to Draft Replacement policies DES1 and DES7”.
The applicant appealed against the refusal of planning permission, and this was dismissed by the
Planning Inspectorate on 18th December 2006.
PUBLICITY
The following addresses have been notified:
Wardley Mews, 565 Manchester Road
Morning Star, 520 Manchester Road
21
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
567, 571, 573, 575 Manchester Road, Worsley
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific Policies: None
Other Policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
OTHER LOCAL PLANNING GUIDANCE
House Extensions SPD -
Policy HE5 – Single Storey rear extensions
Policy HE10 – Dormer Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issues for consideration with this application are the impact of the proposed dwelling on
the amenity of surrounding and future residents and the impact of the proposed development on the
character of the area.
Inspector’s Decision
The Inspector’s decision to dismiss the appeal against the refusal of application 05/51931/FUL is a
material consideration in the determination of this application.
Whilst the Inspector agreed overall with the Council’s reason for refusal, he concluded that the two
storey extension to the rear would not cause unacceptable overlooking given that the views from
the extension would be little different to the views that would have been available from a similar
window in the appeal property’s rear elevation, had the extension not been built. He did however
consider that the rear extension would be overbearing and be unduly prominent from both the
windows and gardens of nos. 565 and 567 Manchester Road, and would cause overshadowing to
the back gardens of one or other of no 571 and nos 565 and 567 Manchester Road during daylight
hours. With regard to the front dormer, the Inspector concluded that in view of the number of front
dormer windows within newer dwellings in this area, criticism of the feature would be difficult to
justify.
The Inspector referred to the Enforcement Notice (which was appealed against and considered at
the same time as the S78 appeal) and refers to the fact that the Enforcement Notice requirements
relate only to the rear extension. The current application proposes the retention of the house, as
22
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
built, but includes a single storey element to the rear, rather than the two storey element which
previously concerned the council and the Inspector.
Character of area
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.
Policy DES8 of the UDP states that planning permission will only be granted for extensions where
they respect the scale, character, rhythm, proportions, details and materials of the original structure
and complement the general character of the area. The design of alterations and extensions must
ensure the resultant building appears as an attractive and coherent whole.
The nature of the development (the retention of an end of terrace dwelling house) means that it
would be visible from both the street scene and neighbouring properties. In this case, the
development replaced an existing end-of-terrace dwelling which was unsafe and dilapidated, and
therefore the replacement by a new house makes a positive contribution to the street scene. The
property has been rendered which is not out of character with the immediate vicinity, as numbers
579 and 577 are also rendered.
With regards to the impact of the application on the character of the area, the Inspector stated in his
decision that: “In view of the number of front dormer windows within the newer dwellings in this
area, criticism of a like feature at the property is, I believe, difficult to justify. Neither, to my mind,
is the extension’s scale or form sufficiently different from its surroundings to warrant its removal
on the ground of its effect on the character of the area” (paragraph 17).
House Extensions SPD Policy HE10 refers specifically to dormer extensions and states that
planning permission will normally be granted for the erection of dormers on the roof plane facing
an adopted highway, on a hipped side roof place or those that wrap around two or more different
roof slopes unless they can be designed in a way which does not have an unacceptable impact on
the street scene. In order to be considered acceptable dormers will normally need to be: Sited below the ridge line of the dwelling
Set well back from the eaves line, usually such that the window sill rests on the roof place;
AND
Set well in from the eaves line and not built off an external walls.
Once again, in view of the Inspectors comments, and having regard to the character of the local
area, the front dormer is considered acceptable. With regard to the proposed rear dormer this is set
in from the eaves and set down from the ridge. It is not set back from the eaves line. However, given
it is to the rear and not visible from the main street I am satisfied that it does not unacceptably harm
the character of the area.
Amenity
23
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
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 users of other developments.
House Extensions SPD Policy HE1 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for
extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 21m between facing principal windows of
habitable rooms. There are more than 21m from the rear of the proposed extension to the
apartments of Bellam Court (off Bagot Street. There are no facing habitable room windows to the
front of the property.
Policy HE5 of the House Extensions SPD states that planning permission will not normally be
granted for single storey rear extensions to detached, semi detached or terraced dwellings that
project beyond a 45 degree line drawn from either: the mid-point of any principal window of a
ground floor habitable room in the adjoining dwelling; or a point 3m along the common boundary
from the rear elevation of the adjoining dwelling. The proposed extension projects 0.45m beyond a
45 degree line drawn from the mid point of the ground floor window of no. 567 Manchester Road.
The Inspector’s main concern was the overbearing and overshadwoing effect of a two storey rear
extension. Now that the extension is single storey and only projects a minimal distance beyond the
45 degree line it is considered that its impact is not so adverse to now warrant a reason for refusal.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the proposal would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the
street scene or the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposal is in accordance with the
Council's Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions, and policies DES7 and DES8
of the adopted UDP.
I therefore recommend that this application be approved and the dwelling in its current form (with
alterations to the rear) be retained.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of one year beginning with the
date of this permission.
2. Standard Condition D01C
(Reasons)
24
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
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:
07/54819/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Walsh
LOCATION:
334 Worsley Road Swinton M27 0EF
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing side porch and erection of two storey side
extension
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a terraced residential dwelling on a corner plot fronting Worsley Road,
Swinton. The area is characterised by semi-detached and detached residential dwellings. The
property at the rear (no.6 The Walled Garden) is a detached residential dwelling.
The application proposes a two-storey side extension. Amended plans were received on 26th June,
altering the internal layout of the proposed side extension (first floor only) so that the proposed
bedroom (habitable room) would be positioned at the front of the extension and the proposed
en-suite and walk in wardrobe (non-habitable) would be positioned at the rear. The amended plans
25
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
should be read in conjunction with the original plans, as only part of the original plans have been
superseded
The proposed side extension would be set back 3m from the original front elevation. It would then
project 6.3m from the original side elevation and 7.7m from the proposed front elevation. The
height, to the ridge, would be approximately 7.1m, approximately 1m less than the original
dwelling.
According to the submitted plans the ground floor would solely consist of a kitchen. The kitchen
would include a large window on the rear elevation, a bay window and door on the front elevation
and a small window on the side elevation. The first floor would consist of one large bedroom
(situated at the front of the extension), an en suite and a walk in wardrobe (situated at the rear of the
extension). The bedroom would be served by one large window on the front elevation and one
small window on the side elevation. The walk in wardrobe and en suite would be served by two
small windows on the rear elevation.
PUBLICITY
The following addresses have been notified:
328 and 336 Worsley Road
5, 6, and 7 The Walled Garden
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection, both from the occupiers of the property at the rear. That
have raised the following concerns:
Loss of privacy
Loss of protected tree T7 (holly)
I have had a request from Cllr Garrido that this application be reported to Panel.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific Policies: None
Other Policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alteration and Extensions
OTHER LOCAL PLANNING GUIDANCE
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Housing Extensions
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Trees and Development
26
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this planning application are: whether there would be an
unacceptable impact on neighbours and residents; the potential impact on the street scene; whether
the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of protected trees and whether the development
accords with the relevant policies of the UDP and the Council’s SPD on House Extensions.
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 towards local
identity and distinctiveness.
Policy DES8 states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations or extensions to
existing buildings that respect the general scale, character, rhythm, proportions, details and
materials of the original structure and complement the general character of the surrounding area.
As the proposed extension is to the side of the original dwelling, it is noticeable from Worsley Road
and Ewhurst Avenue. It is considered that the proposed extension would be similar in character to
the original property. Furthermore, the proposed scale of the extension would not be incongruous
in this setting. In terms of materials, it is considered that the extension would complement the
existing dwelling. However, in order to guarantee this, a condition would be attached ensuring
materials match the existing building. It is considered that the proposed extension would comply
with the requirements of DES1 and DES8.
Policy DES7 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 users of other developments.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) House Extensions was adopted in July
2006. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards to be
maintained when determining householder planning applications.
Policy HE3 states planning permission will not normally be granted for a two storey or first floor
extension that does not maintain a minimum distance of 13m between its blank gable end wall and
facing ground floor principle windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings. The rear
elevation consists of a ground floor kitchen window (non-habitable) and two non-habitable first
floor windows serving the en suite and walk-in wardrobe. The nearest dwelling at the rear has two
habitable ground floor windows. The distance between the proposed rear elevation and the rear
elevation of Number 6 The Walled Garden (the principal residential dwelling to the rear) would be
approximately 19m. The distance between the proposed extension and the common boundary
would be 12m. Furthermore, the proposed extension would not project any further than the existing
dwelling, which itself incorporates habitable windows on the first floor. Therefore, it is deemed
that there would be no unacceptable impact on the properties at the rear of the proposed extension.
Therefore, the proposed extension would comply with Policy HE3.
27
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
The SPD House Extensions contends that kitchen areas may be considered to be habitable rooms
depending on their function within the house. The distance maintained between the proposed
kitchen window and the facing habitable window at 6 The Walled Garden is 18m and the distance
to the common boundary is 12m. Furthermore, there is a significant amount of boundary treatment
screening the dwelling at the rear. It is therefore considered that even if the kitchen were to be
considered habitable, it would not result in any unacceptable loss of privacy to the residents at no.6.
The side elevation facing Ewhurst Avenue would consist of a ground floor non-habitable window
and a first floor habitable window. The nearest property is no.328 Worsley Road. Its gable end
wall is approximately 35m away. Therefore, the proposed development would have no
unacceptable impact on the occupiers of the property at the side.
Policy HE9 states that planning permission for a single storey or two-storey side extension to a
dwelling on a corner plot will not normally be granted unless a minimum distance of 2m is
maintained between the boundary or back of the boundary and the nearest part of the extension.
The distance maintained between the back of the service strip and the nearest part of the proposed
extension would be 20m. Therefore, the proposed extension would comply with Policy HE9.
The proposed front elevation would consist of a ground floor kitchen window (non-habitable) and a
first floor bedroom window (habitable). There are no residential dwellings directly in front of the
proposed extension. Therefore, there would be no unacceptable impact resulting from the proposed
extension.
The proposed extension cannot be seen from the adjoining property, no.336 Worsley Road.
Therefore there would be no unacceptable impact on the property.
TREES
Policy EN13 of the Adopted UDP states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss
of, or damage to, protected trees will not normally be permitted. Where the loss of trees is
considered acceptable, adequate replacement provision will be required
An Arboricultural Impact Assessment, compiled by Treecheck Ltd has been submitted. The
assessment accounts that Tree Preservation Order 153 (T.P.O) individually protects the trees
between the eastern side of the property and Ewhurst Avenue. The assessment outlines protection
methods and states that the builder will adhere to the ‘Method Statement for Tree Protection’. This
method statement will need to be provided prior to any building works going ahead, and will need
to include information on how the trees are to be protected during the building works. Any works
taking place within the Root Protection Area (RPA) will need to be outlined in the method
statement; this includes the construction of the proposed parking area, and will need to comply with
the attached condition requiring this.
28
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
The assessment states that the proposed development would need to remove four trees protected by
TPO153 (as amended). The four trees are:
Holly tree 0200 (shown as T7 on the TPO schedule)
Maple tree 0249 (shown as T9 on the TPO schedule);
Hawthorn tree 0250 (shown as T10 on the TPO schedule); and
Ash tree 0436 (shown as T11 on the TPO schedule).
In account of this assessment the arboricultural consultant has visited the site and reviewed the
submitted report. He considered that the trees have a limited value in terms of local amenity and
therefore the removal of the above trees is not considered to be unacceptable. The reasons for this
are evaluated below.
The documented TPOs have been in place since March 1992. Initially the trees were considered to
provide value in terms of local amenity as a group (not individually). However, there have been a
number of developments that have diminished their amenity value. Including:
i.
ii.
iii.
The TPO was made on the basis that the trees, as a group, provided considerable
amenity value to the local area. It is considered that the vast majority of these trees
would not be considered worthy of protection on an individual basis. Since 1992 the
trees have matured and as a result of this, a number of the inner trees, including those to
be removed, can no longer be seen from Worsley Road or Ewhurst Avenue. It is
therefore considered that the amenity value of the group of trees is no longer realised
by all of the protected trees. It is now considered that only the protected trees that front
Ewhurst Avenue provide a benefit to the amenity of the area and not the trees that are
concealed from public view within the site (the four trees that would be removed).
334 Worsley Road includes a second group of trees that front Worsley Road. When
the initial TPO 153 was introduced it is considered that these trees were in the early
stages of maturity, therefore, added little in terms of local amenity. However, over the
years it is considered that the trees have matured to the extent that they too screen those
trees located within the grounds of 334 Worsley Road.
The Walled Garden is a residential street situated off Ewhurst Avenue, which was
developed after the TPO was made. It is considered that the introduction of the Walled
Garden has, to a further extent, obscured the trees from public view, further decreasing
the amenity value of the trees that would be felled.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Trees and Development provides
additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards to be maintained when
determining the impact of trees on development.
Policy TD6 of the SPD states in the case of replacement tree planting the Council will require,
wherever practicable, the replacement on the basis of at least two new trees for each tree lost. The
size and species of the trees shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Where replacement
trees cannot be accommodated on site, contributions to off-site planting will be sought. The
amended Arboricultural Survey details the removal of the four trees that will be directly affected by
29
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
the development (T7, T9, T10, T11). The applicants have proposed to replant replacement trees in
order to conform to Policy TD6 and a condition is attached to ensure this.
Policy TD2 of the SPD states that no development should take place within the Root Protection
Area (RPA) or the maximum spread of a tree, taking into account the future likely growth of that
tree. The root protection area of the four trees to be removed has been assessed. In respect of this,
it is considered that that the proposed extension would cause harm to the individual trees. The
removal of these trees will provide adequate space for the construction of the extension and the
protection of the remaining trees in the group, which satisfies SCC Policy TD2. It should be noted
that the trees would only be affected by the proposed side extension, not the proposed hardstanding.
Policy TD3 of the SPD states that in the case of residential buildings, development will not be
permitted where a principal habitable room window would be overshadowed by a tree, or where
any part of a tree would be sited within 3.6m of a principal habitable room window. The crowns of
the retained trees are at a sufficient distance to comply with Policy TD3.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the proposal would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the
street scene or the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposal is in accordance with the
Council's Supplementary Planning Document on house extensions. The Supplementary Planning
Document: Trees and Development and policies EN13, DES7 and DES8 of the adopted UDP.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Standard Condition D01C Materials to match
3. Standard Condition C11T Replacement - Planting season
4. Notwithstanding the submitted arboricultural reports dated April 2007 an arboricultural
method statement detailing the Root Protection Areas, proposed construction of hardstanding
and mitigation measures for the protected trees shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The proposed works shall be carried out in accordance with
the Arboricultural Method Statement unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
(Reasons)
30
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
4. Reason: To protect trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order in accordance
with policy EN 13 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:
07/54815/FUL
APPLICANT:
Countryside Properties UK Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Camp Street, Great Clowe Street, Moss
Street And Duke Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 37 houses and 160 apartments (in five blocks - a
four-eight storey apartment building known as Block 1, a four
and five storey apartment building known as Block 2, a five
storey apartment building known as Block 3, a four storey
apartment building known as Block 4 and a four storey
apartment building known as Block 5), creation of public
spaces, car parking and ancillary uses together with highway
and other works
31
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
WARD:
2nd August 2007
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This site relates to a 1.74 hectare site within Lower Broughton. It is located on the junction of Camp
Street and Great Clowes Street to the north, and Moss Street to the South. The majority of land
within the site is vacant land, as a number of properties have been demolished in anticipation of the
wider Lower Broughton regeneration project. There is a row of derelict properties 167-173 Great
Clowes Street, on the west boundary of the site, which are awaiting demolition.
There are a number of occupied buildings within the site. Broughton Fit City is within the western
corner of the application site, which is a Council-run recreation centre. A temporary car park for Fit
City is sited off Muriel Street and will remain operational until planning permission is secured for
this site. In the southeast corner is the Church of the Nazarene and a row of terraced properties
21-31 Moss Street. Countryside Properties has located a temporary ‘Information Centre’ with
associated car park off Muriel Street. This will be relocated to the sales centre on the newly opened
Broughton Lane, within phase one of the regeneration scheme.
The areas around the site can be described as predominantly residential. To the north of the
application site beyond Camp Street, outline planning permission has been granted for a residential
apartment scheme. Camponia Gardens and Roman Court are also situated on the northern side of
Camp Street. Land to the east of the site, the Works Site, has recently obtained planning permission
for 32 town houses and 23 apartments. Land south of Moss Street, is phase one of the regeneration
programme planning permission was granted for 121 houses and 331 apartments. This
development is under construction on site and some of the units are occupied.
The application site forms part of the Lower Broughton regeneration area, which comprises
approximately 74 hectares. The applicants, Countryside Properties, have formed a development
partnership with the Council and have developed an agreement, which establishes a framework
under which the redevelopment of the wider Lower Broughton area will be planned, phased and
implemented. Lower Broughton has been identified as an area in need of regeneration due its
declining population, high levels of unemployment, poor health and low levels of educational
attainment. The partnership has identified a vision for Lower Broughton, which is ‘to regenerate
Lower Broughton and create a successful, sustainable neighbourhood which is safe, healthy,
economically active and above all, a place where people will choose to live.’ The partnership has
developed a number of objectives in order to meet this aim, which include: addressing the
decreasing population; providing high quality housing; providing local facilities; providing new
school and leisure and health care facilities (if possible); developing a sense of community;
developing a landscaping and ecology strategy; remediating contaminated land; and, where
possible, retaining and re-using community buildings and providing non-car alternatives to
improve transport to and from the site.
The dwelling houses proposed as part of this application are in groups of between two and nine
houses and would be two, two and a half storeys or three storeys in height. The scheme would
32
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
provide access from Great Clowes Street and Moss Street to both private and communal parking.
The scheme would be constructed in two phases.
PHASE ONE
Phase one of the development would comprise of 14 three-bedroom dwellings, 4 two-bedroom
dwelling and 131 one and two bedroom apartments in two blocks. It is the intention of the applicant
to commence with development of this site as soon as planning permission has been obtained.
Block One
Block One would be situated on the junction of Camp Street and Great Clowes Street, and would
accommodate 99 apartments. The proposed block would be set back 5m from the back of the
footpath along Great Clowes Street. The elevation fronting Camp Street would, at the closest point
be 2m from the back of the footpath. The proposed block would be set back 17m from the signalled
junction. This allows for an area of private amenity space. The block would be 4 storeys in height
adjacent to the proposed residential dwellings along Great Clowes Street, rising to five storeys and
finally eight storeys at the corner of Camp Street and Great Clowes Street and stepping back down
to five storeys on Camp Street. There would be five entrances to the building, two on the front
elevation, one on Camp Street and the other on Great Clowes Street, and three entrances on the rear
of the building. There would be gabion walling and railings frontage to the site, close to the
signalled junction, which would be a maximum of 1.9m in height. There would be a communal
courtyard car park to the rear of the block, which provides car parking for blocks one and two. This
car park would have one vehicular access point, off Great Clowes Street. In the courtyard there
would be an area of private open space for future residents.
Block Two
Block two would front Camp Street would accommodate 32 apartments. The proposed block would
be 5 storeys in height and would be, at its closest point, 2m from the back of the pavement. There
would be two entrances to the block one on the front and the other on the rear of the building. Car
parking and amenity space for the residents of the block would be provided in the communal
courtyard accessed off Great Clowes Street and will be shared with the residents of block one.
Plots 132 – 136
Plots 132 to 136 are a row of terraced dwellings which have frontages to Camp Street. The
proposed dwellings would be set back 6m from the back of the pavement and would have 1m
railing along the front boundary. Plots 132 to 134 are two storey and would have 3 bedrooms. Plots
135 and 136 are two storey dwellings with 2 bedrooms. All the properties would have one car
parking space within the curtilage, in the rear garden, which would be accessed through the
communal car park off Great Clowes Street
33
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
Plots 137 – 145
Plots 137 to 145 are dwellings which have frontages to Moss Street. The proposed dwellings would
set back 8m from the back of the pavement and would have 1m railing along the front boundaries.
Plots 137 to 143 and would be two storey 3 bedroom dwellings. Plots 144 and 145 are two storey
two bedroom properties, and are set back to integrate with the existing building line created by the
existing terraced properties and the Church of the Nazarene.
Plots 146 – 149
Plots 146 to 149 are a row of terraced dwellings which would be situated to the south of block one
and would front Great Clowes Street. The proposed dwelling would be set back 7m from the back
of the pavement and there would be 1m railing along the boundary fronting the highway. The
proposed dwelling would be two storey and would have three bedrooms. One in car parking space
would be provide in the rear garden. These would be accessed from the communal car park off
Great Clowes Street.
PHASE TWO
The second phase of the development would encompass Fit City (Broughton), The Church of the
Nazarene and 21-31 Moss Street. At present the applicants have no control over these properties. It
is the applicant’s expectation that they will have control over these sites in the future, and therefore
planning permission is sought for these areas, but is allowed for in the proposed phasing of the
development. The second phase would comprise 16 four bedroom houses, 3 three bedroom houses
and 29 two bedroom apartments, within three blocks.
Block 3
Block three would front Camp Street and turn to front an area of public space which is a proposed
segregated pedestrian route. This block would accommodate eight apartments and would be four
storeys in height. The block would be 4.5m from the back of the pavement along Camp Street and
2.5m from the boundary with the designated open space. There would be two entrances to the site
one on the front and one on the rear of the building, which is accessed from the communal car park.
The communal car parking area would serve blocks three and four and would have one vehicular
access point, off Moss Street. Private open space for future residents would be in the courtyard.
Block 4
Block four would be located on the junction of Moss Street and the proposed segregated pedestrian
route, known as the North-South Spine in the outline planning application. The block would
accommodate 12 apartments over three storeys. The block would be set back 2.5m the boundary
with the public open space and 3m from the back of the pavement along Moss Street. The proposed
block would have two entrances one off the front elevation facing the public space and the other on
the rear of the building, and would be accessed through the communal car park. The communal car
34
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
parking area would serve blocks three and four and would have one vehicular access point, off
Moss Street. Private open space for future residents would be in the courtyard.
Block 5
Block five would be situated on the junction of Great Clowes Street and Moss Street. This block
would accommodate 12 apartments over four storeys. The proposed block would be set back 4m
from the back of the pavement on Moss Street and 6m from the back of the pavement on Great
Clowes StreetThis block would have one entrance which is on the front elevation of the building.
Car parking is available in a private car parking area which is accessed off Great Clowes Street to
the north of the Block.
Plots 162 – 172
Plots 162 to 172 are two rows of terraces properties which are situated off Moss Street either side of
the proposed terraced dwelling in phase one (plots 137-145). The proposed dwellings would have
four bedrooms and the majority would be three storey in height. However plots 169 and 170 would
be two and a half storeys in height. These proposed dwelling plots 162 – 166 are approximately
8.5m form the back of the pavement and plots 167 – 172 are set back approximately 4m from the
back of the pavement. Each dwelling would have one car parking space which would be located in
the front garden off Moss Street.
Plots 190 -197
Plots 190 to 197 are two terraced rows and one pair of semi detached dwellings. Plots 190 and 191
are two and a half storey semi detached properties, with four bedrooms. Plots 192 to 194 are two
and a half storey terraced properties, with three bedrooms. Plots 175 to 197 are three storey terraced
properties, with four bedrooms. The proposed dwellings would front Camp Street and would be set
back 3m from the back of the pavement. The proposed dwellings would also have one in curtilage
car parking space which would be in the rear gardens and would be accessed through the communal
car parking which is accessed off Moss Street.
SITE HISTORY
In June 2006, outline planning permission was granted for the demolition, conversion and
redevelopment of 22.7 hectares of land and buildings to provide mixed use development
comprising residential (C3), school, community uses (D1), assembly and leisure (D2), business
(B1), retail (A1/A2), cafes, restaurants and public houses (A3, A4, A5), car parking, public spaces
and ancillary uses together with associated highways and other works on land bounded by Camp
Street, Great Clowes Street, Lower Broughton Road, Cumberland Street and Harrison Street,
Salford 7 (ref: 06/52316/OUT).
35
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections to the proposal in principal, but make the following
comments
The site lies outside flood zone 3. The Environment Agency would agree that the potential
occupiers of the units should be required to register with our flood warning system.
The applicants make reference to using permeable paving in the drainage design and
infiltration. The phase 4 area is the most elevated part of the outline area and should
have the most potential for infiltration subject to addressing any potential ground water
contamination issues. The Environment Agency would encourage further investigation of
this in the detailed design.
They consider that with the use of conditions, that the residual risks associated with flooding will be
minimised.
Architectural Liaison Officer – objects to the proposal, and makes the following comments
The ALO does not object to the development in principle, but express concern that
insufficient detail has been provided in the attached statements which would render the
proposals a safe environment.
A Secure By Design commitment is expressed in the Design and Crime Statement referred
to in the Supporting Planning Statement. The detail essential to ensure a secure site should be
identified in the Design & Access Statement. The details however are lacking for example
access between plots 137-167 & 145 – 166 suggests the site is permeable and lacks appropriate
control.
o How are the parking spaces assigned?
o The gable ends of Block 1 and plot 146 & 149 are exposed to the public realm with
no defensible space.
o The rear parking court should be a secure private space.
The ALO is concerned therefore that the Design & Access statement lacks substance and
cannot be regarded as a satisfactory Crime Prevention Plan. The statement does not
illustrate sufficient detail to limit the opportunity for crime and we reject the Design and
Access Statement. An appropriate CPP should be produced which should clearly identify
appropriate security details etc.
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections on the ground of air quality and
noise, and has recommended conditions. The contamination negotiations are ongoing.
United Utilities – No objections.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – expresses its support in relation to this application.
Whilst the application site lies outside of the URC’s identified primary transformation area, it
recognises the role of this development in supporting the regeneration of the Lower Broughton area
as an attractive residential location with a quality-housing offer. The application site occupies an
important road junction and acts as a gateway into the Lower Broughton regeneration area. We
consider that the proposals for the application site will ensure that this key gateway location
36
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
achieves the design quality necessary to uplift this area and act as a catalyst to the wider
transformation of the area.
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No comments received to date
The Open Spaces Society – No comments received to date
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No comments received to date
Ramblers Association (Manchester Area) – No objections to the proposal.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – comments received. The GMPTE confirms
that the site is well located in relation to public transport being within walking distance of a number
of bus stops. The GMPTE has also commented that there are existing bus stops located on Great
Clowes Street and Camp Street on the frontage of the development site. The location of these bus
stops is not shown on the plans received, however having reviewed the application, GMPTE does
not consider that the development proposals will interfere with the location or operation of these
existing bus stop. Finally, the GMPTE has advised that a travel plan should have been submitted
with the application
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No objections as there are no known archaeological
implications for this application site
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – No objections to the proposal on nature conservation grounds.
The buildings to be demolished are of low potential for use by bats and a bat activity survey
conducted in connection with the demolition of properties on Moss Street found no bat activity in
this area.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the site on the 21st June 2007.
A press notice was published on the 28th June 2007.
The following neighbours were consulted on the application
2, 4, 6, 8 Alban Street
138, 140 Camp Street
Broughton Recreation Centre, Camp Street
37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65 Camponia Gardens
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33 Duke Street
33 Duke Street, Flats 1 to 14
Church of the Nazarene, Great Clowes Street
140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150, 152, 154, 156, 156A, 156B, 156C, 158, 158A, 158B, 160,
162, 164, 166, 168, 170, 172, 174, 176, 178-180 Great Clowes Street
The Broughtons, 2 Moss Street
37
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
4 Moss Street, Flats 1 to 6
4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31 Moss Street
28 Moss Street, Flats 1 to 6
1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23 Portsmouth Close
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 Roman Court, Camponia Gardens
5- 11 Tenerife Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any objections in response to the application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP1: Economy in the Use of Land and Building
DP3: Quality in New Development
DP4: Promoting Sustainable Economic Growth and Competitiveness and Social
Inclusion
SD1: The North West Metropolitan Area Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
UR1: Urban Renaissance
UR2: Inclusive Social Infrastructure
UR3: Promoting Social Inclusion through Urban accessibility
UR4: Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
UR9: Affordable Housing
UR10: Greenery, Urban Greenspace and the Public Realm
ER3: Built Heritage
ER5: Biodiversity and Nature Conservation
ER7: Water Resources
ER8: Development and Flood Risk
EQ2: Air Quality
EQ3: Water Quality
T9: Demand Management
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
ST1: Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST2: Housing Supply
ST8 – Environmental Quality
ST10: Recreation Provision
ST11: Location of New Development
ST12: Development Density
ST14: Global Environment
MX4 – Site for Mixed Use Development
DES 1 – Respecting Context
38
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
DES 2 – Circulation and Movement
DES3 – Design of Public Space
DES4 – Relationship of Development to Public Space
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 – Landscape
DES10 – Design and Crime
DES11 – Design Statements
H1 – Provision of New Housing Developments
H2 – Managing the Supply of Housing
H4 – Affordable Housing
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
A1: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A2: Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A5: Buses
A8: Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN13: Protected Trees
EN14: Derelict, Underused and Neglected Land
EN16: Contaminated Land
EN17: Pollution Control
EN18: Protection of Water Resources
EN19: Flood Risk and Surface Water
EN22: Resource Conservation
R1: Protection of Recreational Land and Facilities
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP1: Regional Development Principles
RDF1: Main Development Locations
L4: Regional Housing Provision
L5: Affordable Housing
RT2: Management and Maintenance of the Highway Network
RT6: Parking Policy and Provision
RT7: A Regional Framework for Walking and Cycling
EM2: Remediating Contaminated Land
MCR1: Manchester City Region Priorities
MCR2: Regional Centre and Inner Areas of the Manchester City Region
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT
The Salford City Council Supplementary Planning Document, Lower Broughton Design Code
Adopted 18th January 2006 (SPD) provides contains policies that will particularly inform the
development of detailed layouts and designs:
39
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
LBDC 1: Design statements
LBDC 2: Character of the area
LBDC 3: Views
LBDC 7: Movement
LBDC 8: Open space and adjoining development
LBDC 9: Flood risk
LBDC 10: Density of development
LBDC 11: Housing
Other Supplementary Planning Documents that are of relevance to the determination of this
application include Design and Crime, Trees and Development, Planning Obligations and Housing
Planning Guidance.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principal of residential
development is acceptable on this site; whether the proposed mix of units is acceptable; whether the
size of the dwellings proposed is acceptable; whether there would be sufficient affordable housing;
whether the design of the proposed buildings and the hard and soft landscaping is acceptable;
whether the proposal is acceptable in relation to biodiversity and trees; whether there would be an
unacceptable impact on flood risk; whether there would be an unacceptable impact on residential
amenity; and whether there would be an unacceptable impact on the highway network and the
developer contribution is acceptable. I shall deal with each of the above issues in turn below.
PRINCIPLE
Policy SD1 of RSS states that priority should be given to investment and development that will
enhance the economic strength, complementarily of roles, overall quality of life, environmental
enhancement and social regeneration within the regional poles and their surrounding inner areas.
Draft policy RDF1 Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) encourages the concentration of most
new developments in the region within the urban areas of the Regional Centres, Regional Towns
and Cities.
Policy DP1 of RSS also encourages the effective use of land, buildings and infrastructure and
advocates the sequential approach to meeting development needs, this is alliterated in draft RSS
Policy DP1.
Policy UR1 of the RSS encourages development to provide accessible, desirable, living and
working conditions that ensure a good quality of urban life for all. They should take account of the
key principles identified in the ‘National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal’ and promote urban
renaissance.
40
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
Policy SD3 of the RSS states that developments should help both to maintain urban form and
enhance urban living and also ensure a visually attractive and accessible setting around the North
West Metropolitan Area
Policy ST1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan states that development will be required to
contribute towards the creation and maintenance of sustainable urban neighbourhoods.
Policy ST2 states that an adequate supply of housing will be secured through the refurbishment and
improvement of existing housing; achievement of an average annual rate of housing provision;
control of the types of dwellings provided as part of residential developments and selective
clearance and replacement dwellings that are unfit.
Policy ST11 outlines the strategic approach that land will be brought forward for development. It
states that priority shall be given to brownfield sites which are served by good transport links and
well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure over brownfield sites, over
brownfield sites with adequate levels of accessibility or previously undeveloped land.
The proposed site forms part of the Lower Broughton regeneration area and was included within a
mixed-use development which was granted outline planning consent in June 2006 (reference
06/52316/OUT). Condition 4 of the outline consent controlled the sequence of phasing. This site
follows the boundary of the final phase of the outline permission (phase 4). Phase one obtained
detailed planning permission and is currently under development (reference 06/53281/REM).
However due to land constraints in the subsequent phases and the control of the phasing of the
development by conditions on the outline permission, the applicants have had difficulty in bringing
forward phase two of the development. It has therefore been agreed with the Council to bring this
site forward for development sooner than anticipated because the site is available and accords with
the housing sequence strategy which has been agreed through extensive discussions with council
officers, members’ and the community. This has resulted in the submission of a full application
rather than a reserved matters submission.
The outline permission left all matters reserved for subsequent planning applications and therefore
no detailed plans were submitted. The outline was supported by a zoning plan which outlined the
proposed uses in the mixed use scheme and where they were to be located. Phase four of the outline
permission focused on solely residential development. Therefore this scheme for a residential
development would be in accordance with the principle of the outline permission and it is
considered would not conflict with the wider regeneration scheme in the area.
ST10 requires a comprehensive range of accessible recreation opportunities which would protect,
improve and where appropriate reorganisation of existing recreation sites.
Policy R1 states that development on existing recreation land will not normally be permitted unless
an equivalent replacement site is provided and laid out within the local area.
An element of the site is allocated in the Unitary Development Plan under MX4. Policy MX4 states
that the former Lowry High School is allocated for mixed-use development incorporating housing,
41
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
employment, recreation, community use and support facilities in accordance with strategic policies
in the Unitary Development Plan.
The reasoned justification to policy MX4 suggests that ‘there is particular potential on the northern
part of the site to expand the existing recreational facilities, both indoor and outdoor’. At present
there are no current proposals to demolish Fit City Broughton and no apparent plans to develop any
further recreational facilities on site or alternative provision elsewhere. Therefore the proposed
residential development on the application site would be contrary to the thrust of policy MX4.
It is acknowledged that the proposed site forms part of a wider scheme. The regeneration scheme
proposes recreational facilities south of Clarence Street and would provide facilities for a full size
football pitch, a junior pitch, and two sports and activity areas. The applicants justified in the
outline planning application that this site south of Clarence Street was specifically chose for
recreational uses because the area would also perform the function of providing flood storage
capacity in the event of a flood event, which would overtop the existing defences and it was
considered that this was the best location for providing essential flood mitigation measures.
Therefore the principal of departing from the thrust of policy MX4 has been established in granting
outline permission. I consider that deviating from this decision could have wider implications for
the regeneration of the Lower Broughton.
The redevelopment of the recreational centre falls within phase two of the development proposed
by this application. There are currently no plans to re-site the recreation centre. It is therefore vital
that the proposed development does not result in the loss of recreational facilities. In order to ensure
that this recreational facility is not lost, a condition has been recommended that phase two of the
development would not commence until a replaced recreational facility is constructed and
operational and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. This is vital to ensure that
recreational provision across the city is maintained.
There is an extant outline permission, which has established the principles of residential
development and the general configuration of proposed land use in the immediate area and this
proposal, although free standing, is based on the principle of the outline phase four. It is therefore
considered that the principle of residential uses on this land to be acceptable. It is also considered
that the use of a condition to require the existing recreational facility to be replaced prior to the
commencement of phase 2, would ensure that there would be no unacceptable loss of recreational
facilities across the city. Overall I consider that the proposal would contribute to the
implementation of Lower Broughton Design Code and the regeneration of Lower Broughton. The
proposal would be in accordance with the provision of the development plan. I therefore consider
that the principle of this development on the site would be acceptable.
HOUSING MIX AND DENSITY
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (November 2006) states that local planning authorities
should ‘ensure that the proposed mix of housing on large strategic sites reflects the proportions of
households that require market or affordable housing and achieved a mix of households as well as a
mix of tenure and price’. It also identifies one of the key characteristics of a mixed community as a
42
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
variety of housing allowing for a mix of different households such as families with children, single
person households and older people.
Policy DP3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy encourages the ‘provision of an appropriate range of
sizes and types of housing to meet the needs of all members of society’.
The Central Salford sub-area is identified in the UDP Spatial Framework (paragraph 3.2) as being
the focus for major regeneration and investment activity within the city, and a large element of the
area is within the Manchester Salford Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder boundary. The UDP
seeks to develop Central Salford as one of the most popular and attractive places to live within the
inner areas of Greater Manchester, with an emphasis on high quality housing (paragraph 3.5).
Policy H1 of the UDP requires that all new housing developments contribute towards the provision
of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability
(criterion 1). It sets out eight factors that will help to inform whether the proposed mix and density
of dwellings is considered to be appropriate and acceptable. These are:
The size of the development;
The physical characteristics of the site;
The mix of dwellings in the surrounding area;
Any special character of the surrounding area that is worthy of retention;
The accessibility of the site, and its location in relation to jobs and facilities;
Any specific need for, or oversupply of, residential accommodation that has been
identified;
The strategy and proposals of the Housing Market Renewal Initiative; and
Any other relevant housing, planning or regeneration strategies approved by the city
council.
Policy HOU1 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance expands on policy H1 and states that within
Central Salford new developments should provide a broad mix of dwelling types and that
apartments should only be the predominant form of provision on sites in the most accessible
locations. Alternative approaches on individual sites may be permitted where it can be clearly
demonstrated that there are specific circumstances that justify this, which have particular regard to
criteria A-H of UDP Policy H1.
Policy LBDC 11 also states that residential development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix and range of property types within Lower Broughton that, among other criteria,
creates an attractive location and housing offer for a range of residents, meets the needs of existing
residents, provides family housing of different sizes and underpins economic regeneration. Each
character area should incorporate a range of property types and tenures.
LDBC10 states that the density of development should be appropriate to the location taking into
account the following: the estimated increased population in the area, the need to provide an
attractive environment, to respond to the accessibility of the location, the need to provide a mix of
dwelling whilst providing adequate amenity for existing and future occupants.
43
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
This application proposes the erection of 197 units, 37 (19%) of which would be houses and 160
(81%) would be apartments. It can therefore be seen that in this application the development is
skewed towards the provision of apartments. The mix of dwellings towards apartments results in a
high density of approximately 113 dwellings per hectare.
In order to create a better balance of dwellings in the local area, in accordance with UDP Policy H1
and policies HOU1, LBDC10 and LBDC 11 of the Supplementary Planning Documents, I consider
that the proposed scheme should ideally include a greater proportion of detached/semi detached
dwellings, and conversely fewer apartments.
However, the applicants have stated in their supporting statement (paragraph 5.15) that the choice
of mix is driven by the need to design and layout the site in an appropriate manner. Blocks one,
three, four and five of apartments are situated on the corners of the site. The location of apartments
to address corners is a design tool which is recognised by the Council’s design team and has been
successfully implemented in the first phase of the regeneration scheme. Block two accommodates
affordable units that would be under the control of Contour Housing. This block is specifically
needed to re house existing tenants in the area. The remainder of the units will be family dwellings.
Therefore it is argued that the mix of units is required to make a successful development, that would
deliver in terms of design and would meet the needs of the local community.
The applicant further states that if a higher proportion of family housing were to be provided the
total number of units that could be accommodated within the site would be significantly reduced.
This would consequently reduce the density of the development to a point where the critical mass,
in terms of population, required to create a sustainable community would not exist. This would
result in the development failing to make efficient and effective use of the land and thus would not
achieve the objectives, which both the Council and Countryside Properties have signed up to in
tackling the significant and social problems that exist in Lower Broughton.
In their Supporting Planning Statement the applicants state that ‘It is not intended that this phase
will be typical of all future phases of the development. The inclusion of apartments will help to
create a new housing market in Lower Broughton … this will be absolutely essential if the
redevelopment of the wider area is to build momentum and significant steps to be made to create a
desirable and sustainable community in the heart of Salford’. It is clear that overall it is the
applicants’ intention that future phases will have a much better mix in terms of the type of units, and
that this site forms part of a wider comprehensive redevelopment that as a whole will deliver a
broad range of dwelling types.
Having duly considered the applicants’ justification for their preferred dwelling mix (i.e. 81%
apartments and 19% houses), I agree that there are valid reasons why it would not be not be
appropriate to achieve a higher proportion of houses within this phase of the development. I am
therefore satisfied that, in this particular instance, the mix of dwelling types is acceptable.
DWELLING SIZE
44
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
Criterion 1 of UDP Policy H1 requires new housing development to contribute towards the
provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size.
HOU2 states that the majority of new dwelling should have at least three bedrooms. Apartments
should provide a broad mix of dwelling sizes and the majority should have a floorspace of at least
57m2, to provide future occupants with the space to be capable of accommodating three people
together with a flexible living area.
Across this development, the applicants are proposing the following mix in terms of dwelling size:
Apartments:
1 Bed = 19
2 Bed = 141
Houses
2 Bed = 4
3 Bed = 17
4 Bed = 16
Total
1 Bed = 19
2 Bed = 145
3 Bed = 17
4 Bed = 16
(Phase 1= 19)
(Phase 1= 114, Phase 2= 29)
(Phase 1= 14, Phase 2= 3)
(Phase 1= 16)
The applicants state in their supporting planning statement that fifty of the apartments have a
floorspace of 57m2 and seventy have a floorspace of 55m2. The floor area of the dwellings ranges
from 81m2 to 107m2. 33 out of 37 family dwellings have three bedrooms or more which would be in
accordance with the requirements of HOU2 and therefore is acceptable. However there would be a
number of apartments have a floorspace that would not meet the requirements of HOU2 and there
are no three bedroom apartments.
The Housing Planning Guidance note actually states that where apartments are proposed, they
should provide a broad mix of dwelling sizes in terms of the number of bedrooms and the amount of
useable floorspace, that small dwellings should not predominate and a significant proportion of
three bedroom apartments should be provided wherever practicable.
The application has provided 75% of the apartments at a size of between 55 and 57 square meters.
The guidance states that the majority of housing should be over 57 square metres, of the apartment
proposed in this application 30% would meet this size criteria and 45% of the apartments would be
2 square meters short of this threshold. I consider that on balance the reduced floor space of some of
the proposed apartments is compensated by the number of apartments which are around the
threshold exceeding the desired 50%. The applicants have not sought to provide 3 bedroom
apartments and have instead opted to provide larger two bedroom apartments. They have stated in
the supporting planning statement that other residential developers in the vicinity are also avoiding
three bedroom apartments, because there is no private demand for three bedroom apartments in
Lower Broughton. I consider that the applicant has justified the proposed mix and size of units on
site and on balance the mix of apartments proposed would reflect local demand for residential units
45
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
in the area I therefore consider the proposal would be in accordance with the thrust of H1 and the
Supplementary Planning Guidance.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Draft RSS policy L5 states that a range of delivery mechanism should be in place to secure
provision of affordable housing to suit a variety of needs.
H4 highlights that in areas that there is a demonstrable lack of affordable to meet local needs
developers will be required by negotiation with the city council to provide an element of affordable
housing of appropriate types.
Policy HOU3 states that 20% of the dwelling on residential sites over 1 hectare of 25 units should
be in the form of affordable housing.
There is a need citywide for affordable housing, with an Affordable Needs Assessment showing
that there is a need for 600 units per annum over the period 2006-16. Amongst other things, this
need is a result of rising house prices to household incomes, an increase in those on the Housing
Register, the Right to Buy scheme, and a decrease in the vacant local authority and Registered
Social Landlord (RSL) stock.
A pre-requisite of the Development Agreement is an obligation for Countryside Properties UK Ltd
to provide or procure the construction of sufficient affordable rented units and intermediate units to
replace such existing homes. Contour Housing Group are the lead RSL in Lower Broughton and
Countryside will build affordable units to be owned and managed by Contour Housing Group Ltd.
147 of the proposed dwellings would be private (75%) and 50 units would be affordable housing
(25%). The affordable units would be a mixture of social rented and intermediate units. It is
intended that the affordable units will be entirely devoted to re-housing identified tenants from
Countess Grove, Lord Street, Baroness Grove and Camp Street. I consider this to be appropriate,
given that 72% of the existing housing stock in Lower Broughton can be classified as being
‘affordable housing to rent’.
All of the proposed affordable dwellings would be provided to meet the needs of those residents
within the area who are being relocated. The applicants are not providing any further affordable
accommodation. However, as discussed above, there is already a high percentage of affordable
accommodation within Lower Broughton, and a relatively low percentage of owner occupied
properties. I therefore consider that requiring the applicants to provide further affordable
accommodation would not contribute to the creation of an appropriately balanced and sustainable
community, and consider that the applicants have provided sufficient affordable units to comply
with the thrust of Policy H4. The applicants also state that all housing has been designed to be
‘tenure blind’ (ie. that it should not be possible to tell from the outside whether the properties are
affordable or private) and I am satisfied with their proposals in this regard.
46
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
DESIGN
Policy ST8 states that development will be required to contribute towards enhanced standards or
environmental quality through achieving high standards of, design, amenity, safety, environmental
maintenance and management.
DES1 requires developments 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.
DES2 states that the design and layout of new development will be required to be fully accessible to
all people, maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists through and around the site safely,
be well related to public transport and local amenities and minimise potential conflicts between
pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
DES3 expects development to include the provision to public space. Public space must be designed
to have a clear role and purpose which would respond to local needs; reflect and enhance the
character and identify of the area; be an integral part of and provide appropriate setting and an
appropriate scale for the surrounding development; be attractive and safe; connect to establish
pedestrian routes and public spaces and minimise and make provision for maintenance
requirements.
DES4 states that developments that adjoin a public space shall be designed to have a strong and
positive relationship with that space by creating clearly defining public and private spaces,
promoting natural surveillance and reduce the visual impact of car parking.
DES10 states that developments must be designed to discourage crime, antisocial behaviour, the
fear of crime which supports personal and property security.
DES11 states that all major developments will be required to demonstrate how their development
takes account of the need for good design and scale representations of the proposal within the wider
context.
Policy LBDC1 states that for all major developments within the Lower Broughton Area should be
accompanied with a design statement which specifically identifies and address design issues.
Policy LBDC 2 states that the design of new development should respond to the emerging character
of the “character area” within which it is located, as identified in the SPD, and should contribute to
the character of Lower Broughton as a whole.
Policy LBDC 3 states that design must respond to existing and potential views within Lower
Broughton.
In accordance with Policy DES11 and LBDC1, the applicant has submitted a design statement,
which outlines the design principles of the development and provides an explanation for the site’s
47
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
layout and how this relates to the wider area. The support text illustrates the how the proposed
development of the site has evolved through pre-application discussions.
A perimeter block with car parking and public space in the centre has been used in this
development, this clearly delineates between public and private spaces, reducing the opportunities
for anti social behaviour and improving the opportunity for social interaction The perimeter design
of the proposal reinforces emerging street patterns and morphology and creates a consistent pattern
of streets to those agreed on site for phase one of the development.
The application site is an important site when considering the redevelopment of Lower Broughton.
The site is positioned at the key junction of Great Clowes Street and Camp Street. It will form,
together with the Fenney Street and Camp Street applications, the main gateway from the north.
The location of taller buildings at key junctions and nodes has been a tool used throughout the
design of Lower Broughton. The terraced properties are punctuated with blocks that not only turn
the corners but also rise to emphasise edges and junctions. With this in mind and with these design
tool used in phase one of the regeneration, the ‘stepping up’ of block one to eight storey is wholly
appropriate at this gateway junction. The apartment blocks around the other important junctions
are appropriately scales for junctions that are lower in priority.
The applicants have not submitted samples of the materials to be used for the buildings within the
site. The drawings submitted do however indicate that the buildings would be constructed using a
combination of reconstituted stone, grey, black and red cladding and buff, pink, red multi and blue
coloured bricks, with concrete roof tiles. The materials have been selected to respect the materials
in the surrounding area. The applicants state that the materials to be used would add texture, colour
and pattern and would be durable. Due to the location of this block on a major gateway into the
area it is imperative that quality materials and a high finish is achieved. I am confident that the
materials to be used would be of a high quality capable of creating an appropriate character for the
area, as the applicants envisage. In order to ensure that these overcome concerns a condition has
been placed on the permission that samples of materials have to be submitted to and approved by
the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.
The proposed perimeter blocks would have a close relationship to public realm and create a high
level of natural surveillance to both the public and private spaces. The site would be secured and
access into the site would be restricted to residents only by the use of lockable gates.
The proposed design details have been developed in close consultations with the Police
Architectural Liaison Officer and design principles recommended at those meeting have been
incorporated into the scheme. However during the consultation period additional comments from
the Architectural Liaison Officer were received. These were forwarded to the applicant and
subsequent meeting has taken place and the scheme has been amended to incorporate advice
received in this meeting. The applicant does note in a letter dated the 18 th July 2007, that the
requirements of the Housing Corporation funding that the development achieves Secure By Design
Accreditation.
48
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
The Architectural Liaison Officer also highlighted that the information submitted in the design and
access statement and the Design and Crime Statement could not be regarded as a Satisfactory
Crime Prevention Plan. Notwithstanding the feedback from the ALO on this matter, I consider that
the applicant has submitted sufficient information on design and crime. Indeed since issuing his
initial response to the application, the ALO has confirmed to the applicant that he is happy with the
amendments that have been made to the scheme and considers that it should meet Secured By
Design standards. On this basis, I have no objections to the application in this regard.
BIODIVERSITY AND TREES
Policy EN13 states that development 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.
There are fourteen existing trees on site, none of which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
In this application all fourteen trees within the site are to be felled. A tree survey was undertaken
and 6 of the trees had been identified as being desirable for retention and the remaining eight were
in varies stages of decline and of a poor quality with limit visual amenity. The City’s consultant
Arborist has assessed the trees on site and is of the opinion that one ash tree located close to the site
boundary on Camp Street, is worthy of protection. The ash tree that would be worthy of protection
would offer some contribution to the amenity to the area and maturity to the development.
The reasoned justification to policy EN13 states that where the benefits of development clearly
outweigh the loss of protected trees…their removal may be permitted. I consider that the
regenerative benefit of the proposal outweighs the loss of one tree which would be worthy of
protection. The policy states where the loss of trees is considered acceptable, adequate replacement
provision will be required. The landscaping scheme submitted with the proposal clearly indicates
that substantial replacement trees would be provided, which would exceed the Council’s normal
requirement for the planting of two replacement trees for each one felled. I therefore do not have
any objections to the felling of the trees within the site.
FLOOD RISK
Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk, outlines the Government’s policy of
reducing the risks to people and the developed and natural environment from flooding. It therefore
looks to local planning authorities to ensure that flood risk is properly taken into account in the
planning of developments to reduce the risk of flooding and the damage which flooding causes.
Policy ER8 of RSS states that, in considering individual planning proposals, local planning
authorities should apply the precautionary principle and make use of the Indicative Flood Plain
Maps to develop the information necessary to apply the sequential approach to flood risk.
Policy EM5 of the Draft RSS requires that any development which, exceptionally, must take place
in current or future flood risk areas is resilient to flooding; protected to appropriate standards and
does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
49
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
Policy EN18 development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on
surface or ground water in terms of its quality, level or flow.
Policy EN19 requires applications for developments which are considered likely to be at risk of
flooding, or to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere materially, to be accompanied by a formal
flood risk assessment, which should, where appropriate, identify the mitigation or other measures
to be incorporated in to the development to reduce the risk of flooding to an acceptable level.
Policy LBDC 9 requires planning applications for development in Lower Broughton to be
accompanied by a flood risk assessment and provides detailed advice on its design.
The application site lies outside the 1 in 100 year floodplain, on the floodplain envelope extends to
just beyond the southeast corner of the site on Great Clowes Street. This means that the flood flow
routes will not be affected, nor will the volume of flood storage area, thus flood risk to third party
land will not be increased. Proposed finished floor levels should therefore be 300mm above the
adjacent road unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to mitigate
against potential flooding risk.
The Environment Agency has no objection in principle to the proposed development. They do
comment on the applicant’s reference to consider using permeable paving in the drainage design
and infiltration. The application site is the most elevated part of the regeneration area and should
have the most potential for infiltration subject to addressing any potential ground water
contamination issues. The Environment Agency encourages further investigation of this in the
detailed design and a condition will be attached requiring these details to be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed development
would not add to flooding issues in the area and would not have an unacceptable impact on surface
water.
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
DES7 requires all new development to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity,
in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. Development will not be permitted
where it would have an unacceptable impact the amenity of occupiers or users of other
developments.
Across the whole site, there would be in excess of 21m between rear elevations on the proposed
residential properties. The proposed dwellings fronting Camp Street would maintain over 25m to
existing residential dwelling on Roman Court and Camponia Garden.
There would be in excess of 21m between the front elevations of proposed and existing dwellings
along Great Clowes Street. The site to the east of the application site has recently obtained planning
permission for the erection of a residential development, The Works Site (06/53108/FUL - Erection
of 32 dwelling houses and 23 apartments together with associated car parking and construction of
new and alteration to existing vehicular access). Block one of the development would be opposite
50
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
proposed dwellings on the Works site. I consider that the distance of 22m between a three-storey
dwelling and an eight-storey apartment block, may be substandard of the council’s separation
distances for house extensions. However, there is a need for height in this corner to address this
important node and northern entrance into Lower Broughton. Block one has been designed as such
so the height is concentrated at the junction and quickly steps down to four storeys in height, which
is a more appropriate relationship. It is acknowledged that achieving good design which would
respect urban form, may be at the expense of residential amenity. However I consider that the
distance proposed would be acceptable and would be sufficient to provide the future occupants of
both developments with a suitable amenity.
Phase one of the development would be adjacent to existing properties 21 to 31 Moss Street. The
proposed terraced properties in phase one would be to the west of the existing properties. The end
two houses on the proposed terrace properties along Moss Street (plots 144 and 145) would be set
back from the other properties in the proposed terrace to match that of the existing dwellings. I
consider that this set back together with a distance of 8.5m between the gable ends of the existing
and proposed, that there would be no unacceptable impact on the amenity of existing residents on
Moss Street.
Due to the road arrangement of Moss Street, the proposed dwellings along Moss Street are
staggered in nature. Plot 137 projects 4.5m beyond the rear elevation of plot 167 and plot 144
projects 5m beyond the rear elevation of 143. These relationships may result in an overbearing
impact on the windows situated in the rear elevations of properties 143 and 167 and have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of future residents. This staggered building line has been
designed to address and respond to the physical nature of Moss Street and existing residential
properties. It is considered that as a result of this stagger only two properties may experience a loss
of amenity, which is a small number of dwellings proposed across the site. I am of the opinion that
the requirement to address the street scene and the requirement for good design is paramount in this
application. Future residents would be aware of this relationship of the dwelling to its neighbours
and be buying into this. I therefore consider this relationship to be acceptable.
The proposed dwellings on Moss Street would face dwellings under construction on phase one of
the regeneration strategy. The proposed dwellings in phase one on Moss Street would be two and
three storeys in height. At the closest point the distance between facing dwellings on Moss Street
would be between 15m and 22.5m. This would be substandard of the council separation for house
extensions, which would require 21m between facing habitable elevations. In order to achieve
family dwellings to a high density which is required in this urban location to achieve a sustainable
development and ultimately new sustainable community. Other standards have to be flexible and in
this case separation distances have been reduced. I consider that these distances would be
acceptable and would still give future occupants an acceptable level of amenity.
Overall I am satisfied with the relationships between buildings within the site and with adjoining
existing dwelling and proposed developments. I am of the opinion that satisfactory amenity level
can be achieved within the site and the proposal would not have an overbearing impact on the
amenity of surrounding residents. I therefore consider the proposal would be in accordance with the
above policy.
51
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
LANDSCAPING
DES9 required to incorporate hard and soft landscaping provision where appropriate which must be
of a high quality that would enhance the design of the development, and not detract from the safety
and security of the area which as a result would enhance the attractiveness and character of the built
environment.
Although approval for landscaping is being sought as part of this application, the landscaping
details provided are relatively limited. The applicants have submitted a landscaping plan with the
application which includes a planting schedule. However the level of detail is insufficient to fully
assess the scheme. The plan also does not show what hard landscaping materials would be used in
the development. I am satisfied that a high quality landscaping scheme can be achieved on site, as
this has been demonstrated in phase one of the development. It is therefore recommended that a
planning condition be attached to any consent requiring further details of landscaping to be
submitted to and improved in writing prior to the commencement of development.
The large central car parking area and communal public space would be located within the middle
of the perimeter block. The applicants have stated in the design and access statement that the
Management Company will maintain all the spaces outside private gardens. I am therefore satisfied
that the long term management and maintenance of this area is guaranteed and would be maintained
at a high standard to ensure an attractive and safe environment for future occupants.
HERITAGE
Policy CH5 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have an
unacceptable impact on an ancient monument, or site or feature of archaeological importance or its
setting.
LBDC5 states that developers will be required to record, protect and where appropriate excavate
archaeological features in accordance with national and local policies.
The applicants have submitted an archaeological desk based assessment to identify potential
archaeological interest. The report submitted was based on investigations undertaken in 12 trials
pits. The survey concludes that the potential for archaeological deposits/features is low, due to there
being significant ground disturbance during the 19th Century housing development and its later
demolition. The report therefore concludes that no further archaeological works are recommended.
The Greater Manchester Archeological Unit have been consulted on the application and there are
no known archaeological implications for this application site. I therefore consider that the
development would not have an unacceptable impact on feature of archaeological importance in
accordance with above policies.
TRAFFIC GENERATION AND HIGHWAY ISSUES
52
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport, outlines the need to promote more sustainable
transport choices, promote accessibility to jobs, shopping and leisure facilities and services by
public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the need to travel, especially by car. It sets out
maximum car parking standards which will assist in the promotion off sustainable transport
choices. The guidance highlights the importance of walking and cycling as substitutes for short car
trips. It also sets out the requirements for travel plans to help in the delivery of sustainable transport
objectives, including reductions in car usage, reduced traffic speeds and more environmentally
friendly delivery services.
Policy T9 of RSS relates to demand management. It also covers the issue of car parking standards
and states that standards should be more restrictive in urban areas to reflect local characteristics,
such as higher levels of public transport and higher development density. This is alliterated in draft
policy RT6.
Policy A1 requires planning applications for developments which would give rise to significant
transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport assessment
and, where appropriate, a travel plan.
Policy A2 requires development proposals to make adequate provision for safe and convenient
access by the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists through the protection and improvement of key
routes.
Policy A5 states that development of bus corridors will be permitted where they are consistent with
regeneration objectives and policies in the UDP.
Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would compromise highway
safety by virtue of traffic generation and access.
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
Policy LBDC 7 states that development should facilitate the improvement of connections between
the different parts of Lower Broughton and to surrounding areas, and help promote walking and
cycling.
The applicants have submitted a Transport Assessment with this application. The applicant’s
highway consultants have concluded that the site has been found to be highly accessible by
walking, cycling and public transport. The site would be located close to employment, leisure, retail
and community uses. It is considered that the proposal would not have a material impact on the
operation of the local highway. The means of access from Great Clowes Street and Moss Street are
considered to comply with the relevant standards and guidance for new residential developments.
And therefore concludes and considers the development is acceptable in terms of highways, traffic
and transportation issues.
53
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
A number of conditions and notes to applicant have been recommended, in order to ensure that the
proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. I am therefore satisfied that the
proposal would be in accordance with A1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Across the site car parking is provided either in courtyards or within residential curtilage. All
proposed dwellings would have one in curtilage car parking space. The properties along Moss
Street would have a car parking space to the front of the dwelling access from Moss Street. The
remaining dwellings would have car parking spaces within the curtilage to the rear of the property,
these spaces will be accessed from the communal car parks. Blocks one and two would have a large
communal car park with 131 spaces. The access to this car park would be from Great Clowes Street.
Blocks three and four would have a communal car park with 29 spaces accessed of Moss Street.
Block five would have a communal car park with 12 car parking spaces this would be accessed of
Great Clowes Street.
The submitted plans do not indicate disabled spaces within the development. I am satisfied that
disabled spaces can be incorporated into the car parking layout. Therefore I have attached a
condition requiring the layout of the car park to have suitable allocation for disabled and this is to
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Phase one of the development would provide a new permanent car park for Fit City. The
replacement car park would have 55 car parking spaces to match the existing car park. This number
would include 7 bays allocated for disabled use. I consider the number of disabled bays would
accord with the provision require in the UDP.
There is no provision within the either phase of development for the provision of cycle or
motorcycle parking provision. I therefore have conditioned that this be approved prior to
commencement of development.
In light of the Council’s maximum car parking standards and the need to encourage the use of more
sustainable modes of transport. I consider that the level of car parking proposed would be
acceptable. I am satisfied that the proposals would not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact
on highway safety and consider that the application complies with the above policies.
In relation to the comments made by the GMPTE, the applicants have noted the issue regarding the
retention of the bus shelter and bus stop in their current location.
The scale of development and associated traffic implications were properly and extensively
considered at the outline application stage, including the issue of a residential Travel Plan. This was
specifically discussed with SCC officers at the time, who stated that a Travel Plan would only be
required if it was necessary to mitigate the traffic and travel impact of the development. It was
concluded that a travel plan would not be required.
Whilst this is a full planning application it does not raise any issues different from those at the
outline stage and the outline consent remains extant and is thus capable of implementation.
54
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
Policy A1 states that a travel plan would be required in a situation where the development has a net
traffic impact that could not be accommodated by the local highway infrastructure - ie to mitigate
an adverse impact. The TAs for the recent applications all demonstrate that the proposed
developments can be accommodated satisfactorily. I am therefore of the opinion that it would not
be reasonable to require the applicants to submit a travel plan. Moreover, given the site’s location in
close proximity to public transport links and the limited number of car parking spaces proposed, I
am satisfied that future residents of, and visitors to, the site will be encouraged to use public
transport.
IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Air Quality and Noise
Policy EN17 states that development proposal that would be likely to cause or contribute towards a
significant increase in pollution to air or noise will not be permitted unless they include mitigation
measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development.
Noise
The planning application contains a noise assessment which addresses the potential noise impact of
the construction of the development on the existing local residential dwellings and a PPG 24
assessment for the proposed dwellings.
The report makes estimates of the likely noise from construction, and confirms that new properties
will not be occupied while construction of adjacent properties is ongoing. To deal with issues of
noise, it is recommended that acoustic fencing is in place throughout the duration of the
construction period in order to protect the amenity of residents.
The noise assessment also recommends the use of mitigation measures, including specified glazing
and passive ventilation systems to reduce the noise levels within habitable rooms, and the use of
mechanical ventilation. It is recommended that details of glazing and ventilation be approved prior
to first occupation, and a condition is attached to this effect.
Air Quality
The application was also accompanied by an air quality assessment, which concludes that the
proposals would not lead to a long term significant increase in emissions or any significant breach
of an air quality objective. Consequently no additional mitigation measures have been
recommended for the development and I am satisfied with this conclusion.
55
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
Contamination
Policy EN14 development involving the reclamation, remediation or improvement of derelict,
underused or neglected land should include measures to ensure that the physical risks are reduced
to acceptable levels.
Policy EN 16 states that development on sites known or thought to be contaminated will require the
submission of a site assessment as part of any planning application, identifying the nature and
extent of the contamination involved, the risk it poses to future users/occupiers of the site, and the
practical remedial measures proposed to deal with the contamination. Planning permission for
development on or near to contaminated land will only be granted where the development would
not, expose the occupiers of the development and neighbouring land uses to unacceptable risk;
threaten the structural integrity of any existing or proposed building on or adjoining the site; lead to
the contamination of any watercourse, water body, or aquifer; or cause the contamination of
adjoining land or allow such contamination to continue.
The applicants submitted a Desk-Based Site Investigation and GEO-Environmental Assessment
and Outline Remedial Action Plan with the application. The contaminated land report is been
assessed by GMGU and meetings have taken place with the applicant’s contamination consultant.
As this negotiation are ongoing it is recommended that the full-contaminated land condition should
be applied to the site, the existing report submitted with the application will be accepted as part
compliance with the condition, however, the outstanding issues can be assessed as and when they
are complete and can be discharged as progress with compliance continues.
DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open
space within housing developments. The amount of open space to be provided shall meet the
identified need deriving from the development. It shall be calculated having regard to the aim of
achieving the standards of Policy R2 and by reference to the approach set out in Supplementary
Planning Documents. The open space will be provided either as part of the development or through
an equivalent financial contribution on a standard cost per bed space for both capital and
maintenance.
Policy R2 outlines targets for the provision of formal sports facilities and children’s play areas.
Policy LBDC 8 states that all open space in the area should be designed as part of an integrated
network of an appropriate quality and quantity to meet the needs of existing and future residents.
New development should help to address the problems of existing open spaces that are poorly
configured, neglected, contribute little to the urban scene and attract anti-social behaviour.
Wherever possible, new open space should be located and designed so as to be capable of providing
water storage capacity in the event of a flood incident.
56
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
Policy H8 and Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document requires developers to
make an appropriate contribution to
The provision of open space
Improvements to the city’s public realm, heritage and infrastructure
The training of local residents in construction skills
The offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions
The amount of contribution required by the applicants as a result of this application is still being
discussed. The outcome of these discussions will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposed development would, as part of the wider proposals
for the regeneration of this part of Lower Broughton, have significant benefits, including the
creation of a sustainable community, the re-use of existing infrastructure, improvements to
accessibility and increased economic activity. I am satisfied that the proposal would comply with
the thrust of national, regional and local planning policy and I therefore recommend that the
application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby
approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the phasing shown on drawings SK20-E and
SK21-E prepared by Countryside Properties UK Ltd.
3. Phase two of the development hereby approved shall not commence until alternative
recreational provision to Fit City Broughton has been sought and is operational, to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
4. Prior to the commencement of development on each phase, samples of all external facing and
roofing materials for that phase (notwithstanding any details shown on previously submitted
plan(s) and specification) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details as approved
unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
5. Prior to the commencement of development on any one phase, a scheme providing details of
the resistance of the external facing and roofing materials from the ingress of flood water, and
the locations of services within the buildings within that phase, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in
accordance with the approved scheme.
57
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
6. Prior to the commencement of development on any one phase, scheme for the provision of
surface water drainage works for that phase shall be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved
scheme.
7. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of
development, the finished floor levels of the buildings hereby approved shall be a minimum of
300mm above the adjacent road level.
8. Prior to the commencement of development on any one phase, the developer shall:
a)
submit a site investigation report for the approval of the LPA. The investigation
shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on
site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under
the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health
and the wider environment; and
b)
Where necessary, submit a site investigation report to assess the risks to controlled
waters for the approval of the LPA and in consultation with the Environment Agency. This
report should also address points c.), d.) and e.) stated below and must be agreed in consultation
with The Environment Agency.
c)
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the
start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within
the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
d)
If, during any works on site, contamination is suspected or found, or contamination
is caused, the Local Planning Authority shall be notified immediately. Where required, a
suitable risk assessment shall be carried out and/or any remedial action shall be carried out in
accordance to an agreed process and within agreed timescales in agreement with the Local
Planning Authority.
e)
A Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for
approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were
completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
9. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. The scheme shall
include full details trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment
and shall incorporate the principles set out in the landscaping strategy which accompanied the
application. The scheme shall also include phasing details for the implementation of the
landscaping. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and
phased provision. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to
the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
58
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
10. Prior to first occupation a landscape maintenance and management scheme shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be
undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.
11. Prior to the commencement of development on any one phase, a lighting scheme for the
apartment blocks and public areas within that phase shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and
thereafter retained prior to the first occupation of the development.
12. Prior to the commencement of development on any one phase, a scheme for the provision of
recycling facilities for the apartments within that phase shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to
the occupation of any dwelling in that phase and shall be maintained thereafter unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
13. Prior to the commencement of development on any one phase a scheme demonstrating, as a
minimum, an Eco Homes or BREEAM "very good" rating shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
14. Prior to the commencement of development on any one phase and notwithstanding the details
shown on the approved plans a revised car-parking layout that provides disabled car parking
spaces within the curtilage of the site in accordance with the standards outlined in the Unitary
Development Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The car park shall be laid out in accordance with the approved details and made
available for use prior to the commencement of development and retained as such thereafter.
15. No development shall be started on any one phase until full details of the location, design and
construction of the cycle stores within that phase have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved cycle stores shall thereafter be
constructed and made available for use before the development is brought into use.
16. All existing vehicular access points (either private or highways) to be stopped up which
currently serve the development site and which have connections to either Camp Street, Great
Clowes Street or Moss Street shall have footways constructed across them to tie into the
existing footways on these streets. Details of the construction / specification of materials for
such footways shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
prior to the commencement of the development, and the development shall be undertaken in
accordance with the approved details.
17. Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans buff tactiles shall be provided either side of
the new vehicle access off Great Clowes Street to the large car park serving Blocks 1 and 2.
59
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
18. Notwithstanding the details shown on Drawing No. SK20-E and SK21-E hereby approved the
security gates on the vehicular entrances to the site should be set back a minimum of 5.5m from
the back of the footpath. The site shall be secured in accordance with the approved scheme
prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings and shall be retained as such thereafter.
19. Notwithstanding the details on the submitted plan all vehicular access points onto Great
Clowes Street and Moss Street shall be a minimum of 4.5m wide with a minimum radii of
4.5m.
20. Prior to commencement of development, a noise and vibration management and monitoring
plan relating to the control of noise and vibration from construction, including any piling
operations, of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. All approved measures identified shall be implemented and maintained
throughout the duration of the works they mitigate during the construction phase, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
21. Noise from the construction, clearance and site remodelling phases of the development
(specified as Site Noise) (LAeq,T) shall not exceed a noise level of 70dBLAeq,1hr at any time
on Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00 hours and LAeq,T shall not exceed the existing
background level (LA90,T) at any time on Saturday 08:00 to 13:00 hours, at any point 1 metre
from the boundary of noise sensitive properties, the locations of which shall first be to be
agreed in writing with the LPA. The existing background noise levels shall be agreed at noise
sensitive properties with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any
development works on the site.
22. Prior to the commencement of development on any one phase, close boarded wooden fencing
with a minimum surface density of 10kgm-2 and a minimum height of 3m shall be erected
around the perimeter of the site and shall be retained as such for the duration of the construction
activities.
23. Prior to the commencement of development on any one phase, full details of the glazing and
ventilation systems to be installed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The approved glazing and ventilation systems shall be installed prior to
first occupation of any of the residential units and retained as such thereafter.
24. Prior to the commencement of the development of any one phase, a Dust Management Plan
(DMP) for that phase shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The DMP shall identify all areas of the construction activities likely to take place on
site where dust may be generated and further identify control methods to ensure that dust does
not travel beyond the site boundary. The approved dust management measures shall be
implemented and maintained at all times during construction of that phase
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
60
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
2. In order to ensure that any impact on the environment and the amenity of neighbouring
residents is minimised, in accordance with policies DES7 and EN14 of the City of Salford
Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3. To safe guard recreational facilities in the city in accordance with R1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
4. To ensure that the materials used are visually appropriate to the locality and in accordance
with Policy DES1 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
5. The buildings are within an area at risk of flooding.
6. To reduce the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of
surface water disposal.
7. In order to reduce flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
8. Standard Reason R024B
9. Standard Reason R004B
10. In order to ensure that hard and soft landscaping is satisfactorily managed and maintained, in
accordance with Policy DES9 of the adopted City of Unitary Development Plan.
11. Standard Reason R024B
12. Standard Reason R024B
13. To ensure that the development accords with sustainability principles in accordance with
Unitary Development Plan policy EN22.
14. Standard Reason R026B
15. Standard Reason R004B
16. Standard Reason R026B
17. Standard Reason R026B
18. Standard Reason R026B
19. Standard Reason R026B
61
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
2nd August 2007
20. Standard Reason R005B
21. Standard Reason R005B
22. Standard Reason R005B
23. Standard Reason R024B
24. Standard Reason R005B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The concrete foundations for the gabion wall to Great Clowes Street and Camp Street if it
extends into the adopted highway is to be first approved by the Highway Authority and must
not affect the existing statutory undertakers plant already in the existing highway.
3. The applicant is advised that the plan submitted pursuant to condition 20 should define the
responsibilities for managing noise and vibration emissions, the mitigation measures proposed,
the methodology of specifying and procuring quiet plant and equipment, the methodology for
the verification of noise emission levels from plant and equipment and the consultation and
reporting processes on matters of noise and vibration between the developer, the LPA and the
public. It should also include issues such as site notices which advise the general public of
contact names and numbers both during and out of hours in the event of noise problems and
include information exercises such as leaflet drops.
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 2nd August 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54926/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Salford Leisure
LOCATION:
Fit City-Irlam Swimming Pool Liverpool Road Irlam M44
6BR
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey front/side extension, part
single/part two storey rear extension, two 5-a-side football
pitches and additional car parking spaces
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Fit City Leisure Centre on Liverpool Road in Irlam. The centre
currently comprises of a swimming pool, a teaching pool and a fitness suite located within a
two storey, flat roofed building, located within Princes Park. The park occupies the land to the
south and east of the centre, and part of the land to the north. The remainder of the land to the
north of the site is occupied by a series of residential properties.
The proposed two storey front and side extension would wrap around the northern corner of the
building in an L shape. It would project 15.4m from the existing front elevation along which it
would run for 35.7m before turning the corner and running for a further 34m. The extension
would be stepped in height measuring 8.9m at its highest point, with a flat roof. This building
would provide a new entrance hall and lobby area, a series of changing rooms and two squash
courts at ground floor level and a dance studio, a fitness suite and two further squash courts at
first floor.
To the rear of this extension there would be a single storey extension that would be 7m in length
which would lead into a 7.7m long single storey link corridor that would provide access to the
proposed sports hall.
The sports hall would be two stories in height with a domed roof. It would be 33.7m long and
18.7m wide and it would measure 8m at the eaves and 10.5 at the highest point of the roof.
Adjacent to the proposed sports hall there would be two 5 a side football pitches which would
occupy an area of 41m by 37m at the rear of the existing building. The 5 a side pitches would be
surrounded by a 3m high fence, the bottom section of which would comprise of a 1m high
section of timber boards with 2m high weld mesh above. In order to facilitate their use in the
evening a series of floodlights would be installed on nine, 3.6m high galvanised steel poles.
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 2nd August 2007
CONSULTATIONS
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections
United Utilities – No comments to date
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on the 5th of July 2007.
A site notice was posted on the 10th of July 2007.
The following addresses were notified of the proposal –
237-243 (odd) Liverpool Road
320 to 376 (even) Liverpool Road
1 to 6 Leader Williams Road
6 Palatine Close
48 Francis Road
Park Cottage, Princes Park
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Loss of parkland
Loss of trees
Night time security will need to be provided in order to ensure that the site is not
vandalised.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 – Quality in New Development
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: ST11 – Location of New Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
R1 – Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 2nd August 2007
R2 – Provision of Recreation Land and Facilities
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are whether the
principle of the proposal is acceptable; the proposed development is of an appropriate design
and scale; there would be any impact on the amenity of existing or future residents in the area;
there would be sufficient parking; 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
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. It does allow for the development of sites
lower down the sequential order where it can be clearly demonstrated that there are insufficient
sites that are or could realistically become available for development or there is a particular
reason to justify why greenfield site should be developed for a particular use.
Policy R1 relates to development on recreational land. It is a criteria-based policy that states
that the development of existing recreation land or facilities will not be permitted unless the
development is for formal or informal recreation purposes that would contribute towards the
continued recreation use of the site.
The existing leisure centre forms the centre piece to Princes Park and it is considered
appropraite to promote and develop its use as a recreational facility that will support the wider
park area. There are no suitable, previously developed sites that are available elsewhere in the
park or in close proximity to the existing leisure centre, nor are there any sites that are likely to
become avaliable within the near future. This, in combination with the operational reasons
supporting the provision of new recreational facilities in close proximity to existing ones and
the fact that the scheme has been designed in such a way that the built elements have been
loacted so as to minimise any potential loss of attractive greenfield land and active greenspace.
I am of the opinion that in this instance it is appropraite to develop on a greenfield site.
With regards to Policy R1 the proposal would result in the loss of some open parkland.
Approximatley 1000m2 would be lost to the proposed car park extension and 2,200m2 would be
lost as a result of the proposed fitness suites, sports hall and 5 a side pitches. The development
would however provide additional formal recreational facilities and it would, as a result, render
the park more attractive to the wider community and potential uses, reinforcing its role as the
main recreational facility in the Irlam area. The development would also enable a more
intensive use of recreational land as well as maximising the potential for linked trips, thereby
reinforcing the recreational use of the wider park area. The proposal is therefore in accordance
with criterion (i) of Policy R1 of the adopted UDP.
Design
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 2nd August 2007
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
I am of the opinion that the design, scale and massing of the proposed extensions would respect
that of the existing building and I feel that the scale and massing of the proposed extensions is
comparable to that of the neighbouring two storey residential properties on Liverpool Road. I
am therefore satisfied that the building would not be at odds with the massing of the street
scene.
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, composite board cladding, render, glazing
panels, aluminium windows and grey aluminium roof panels. The brick elements proposed,
which would form the majority of the extensions, would match the materials of the existing
building and the houses in the immediate area, and the cladding, render and glazing panel
would contribute to the distinctiveness of the proposal and add interest to the street-scene. I
have attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and
approved prior to the commencement of development and I am satisfied that this will ensure
that they will be of a suitably high quality and in keeping with the surrounding area as well as
ensuring that the proposal makes a positive contribution to the character of the area.
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.
Policy R2 relates to the provision of recreational facilities. It states that planning permission for
recreation development will be granted unless it would have an unacceptable impact upon
residential amenity in terms of noise, traffic generation, light pollution, hours of operation,
visual amenity or any other disturbance.
The land to the south and east of the site is not used for residential purposes .The proposed two
storey front extension would be located over 35m from the properties opposite the site on
Liverpool Road. The proposal would not therefore have an unacceptable adverse impact upon
the residential amenity the occupants of these properties can reasonably expect to enjoy.
There is a residential property located to the north of the site at 243 Liverpool Road. This
property does not have any habitable room windows within the gable elevation that faces onto
the site. The proposed two storey front and side extension would be located 14m from the
curtilage of 243 Liverpool Road and 17.5m from the property itself separated by a tree lined
boulevard into the park. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not have an
unacceptable adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of 243 Liverpool Road
can reasonably expect to enjoy.
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 2nd August 2007
Car Parking
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
The current centre has 60 car parking spaces. It is proposed to extend the existing car park with
the addition of 54 new spaces. It is also proposed to alter the layout of the existing car park so it
incorporates 8 disabled spaces. In total 108 spaces would be provided on site. The application
site is well located in terms of public transport and therefore I am satisfied that the proposed
level of car parking is acceptable. The proposed car parking and access would be laid out in
such a way that I do not have any objections to the proposed development on highway safety
grounds.
Trees
There are 22 trees on site and a series of 13 trees that run along the eastern boundary of the site,
none of which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. It is proposed to fell 12 trees in order
to accommodate the proposed development including a willow, two silver birches and three
fruit trees located to the front of the existing building and four cherries and two hollies located
to the north of the existing building. The council’s arboricultural consultant has inspected the
trees and he does not have any objections to their removal as it would not have an unacceptable
adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the area. Numerous mature trees would remain on
site and as a result the treescape of the area would be retained.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of development to be 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
2. Standard Condition D03Y
3. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the location, design and
construction of on-site parking facilities for a minimum of 14 cycles and 4 motorcycles
shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. These
facilities shall be provided prior to the first use of the new sports hall, fitness studios and
squash courts and thereafter made available at all times the development is operational.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 2nd August 2007
4. The weldmesh fencing hereby approved shall be colour treated in green.
5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a noise assessment shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This assessment
should detail the level of noise that will be generated from the proposed use of the site. The
assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures and alternative means of
ventilation which may be determined appropriate to reduce the impact of noise on the
neighbouring residential properties. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local
Planning Authority, all approved noise control and ventilation measures shall be
implemented prior to first use of the dance studio hereby approved and thereafter retained
6. 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.
7. Prior to the commencement of development the tree protection fences detailed within the
report on trees at Fit City, Liverpool Road Irlam (document reference
THC/2007/07/107AS) dated the 21st of July shall be installed in accordance with the
details shown in drawing IRL-05D. The fences shall remain as such until all development is
completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or
topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.
8. Prior to the commencement of development an Arboricultural Method Statement that
details how the two sports pitches 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.
9. Standard Condition C01Y
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
3. In order to provide adequate cycle and motorcycle parking in accordance with Policy A10
of the adopted UDP.
4. Standard Reason R004B
5. Standard Reason R005B
6. Standard Reason R009
7. Standard Reason R009
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 2nd August 2007
8. Standard Reason R009
9. Standard Reason R004B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. There is a public sewer that passes under the site of the proposed extensions. This will need
to be diverted, to United Utilities approval, prior to the commencement of development.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 2nd August 2007
70