PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
APPLICATION No:
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
acquisition) will be funded from a variety of sources, including public sector funding from English
1
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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.
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
2
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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
directly involved in delivering the primary area of public realm within Exchange Greengate. This
3
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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.
85 and 95 Greengate
4
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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
importantly, the establishment of the Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company means that
there is now the opportunity to secure the major transformation of Greengate.
5
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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
6th September 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,
the impact on, and quality of, views and vistas, the potential impact of the proposed development
7
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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
6th September 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
Greengate and the newly aligned Boond Street. The east elevation would be 10m from the Abito
9
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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.
Sustainability
10
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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
6th September 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
6th September 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
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;
13
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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.
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
14
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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 agreed 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
7. Standard Reason R024B
8. To ensure that the development accords with sustainability principles in accordance with
Unitary Development Plan policy EN22.
15
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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:
07/54428/FUL
APPLICANT:
JWS Waste And Recycling Services Ltd
LOCATION:
Westport House 35 Frederick Road Salford M6 6LD
PROPOSAL:
Erection of extension to existing materials recycling building
and extension to existing offices
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Following the panel site visit the following issues summarised below have been raised:
The current restrictions on the site
Local involvement on the original application
Noise nuisance
Terms of the Waste Management Licence (WML)
Air quality
The original 2001 application for the waste and recycling treatment plant approved by the planning
panel was subject to conditions regarding hours of operation, level of noise, the areas for the tipping
of materials, the areas for the storage of skips, the storage of secondary aggregates, the submission
of a dust plan, the implementation of a landscaping scheme and details of boundary acoustic
fencing. The subsequent 2005 application approved under delegated powers, sought permission for
the variation of conditions relating to the restrictions on tipping within the site, hours of operation,
aggregate storage and the storage height of materials on the original permission. It is to be noted
that as the application is for an extension to the existing facility the conditions attached to the
previous approvals still apply.
16
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
On the original application for the means of publicity included a press notice and site notice(s),
which is in accordance with the statutory requirement. Details of who were consulted on this
application are set out the report below.
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services confirmed that they have been dealing with
complaints between 16 December 2005 and 10 April 2007 relating to noise nuisance on the site.
Following the installation of noise monitoring equipment in the complainant’s property, late night
site visits and a meeting with JWS, it was felt that there was not a statutory nuisance being cause
and that JWS were carrying out ‘best practicable means’. In January 2007, letters were sent to
complainants to query if noise was still evident. No responses were received, therefore it was
assumed that there were no further noise issues and the file was closed.
The WML covers the control of pest infestation, scavengers, dust, litter and odour. Numerous
complaints were forwarded to the Environment Agency regarding dust and flies, which is
controlled under the Waste Management Licence (WML). Following investigation by the
Environment Agency an irrigation system and insectocuters were installed to deal with the
problems.
Although the applicant asserts that they cannot increase the amount of waste which is handled on
site, the maximum permitted quantities stipulated by the Waste Management Licence that can be
accepted at the site per year is 375,000 tonnes. The through-put for this year is 77,110 therefore
there is scope to increase the amount of waste handled on site. Throughout the year the applicant is
required to submit quarterly monitoring figures to the Environment Agency to ensure the amount is
not exceeded.
At the meeting of the Panel held on 19th July 2007 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to JWS, Westport House, 35 Frederick Road, Salford, which is the site of
an existing materials recycling building together with offices, parking provision and open storage.
Vehicular and pedestrian access is via Frederick Road, situated along the south eastern boundary of
the site. The site is bounded by the Manchester to Preston mainline railway with industrial
buildings beyond. To the north are more industrial buildings together with residential dwellings
along Lissadel Street.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of extensions to both the existing materials recycling
building and offices. The proposed materials recycling facility extension measuring 31.8m x
30.5m x 15.5m (h) is to be attached to the side of the existing building and 2m lower in height. The
proposed office extensions to both sides of the office building are flush with the front and rear
17
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
elevations and have front and rear dormer windows with a distance of 1.2m between the gutter line
of the office building and the base of the front wall of the dormer and 0.5m between the ridge of the
office building and the junction of the dormer. The proposed extension to the northern elevation of
the building measures 5.3m x 11.5m x 7.8m (h) and the extension to southern elevation measures
6.8m x 11.5m x 7.8m (h).
The purpose of the proposed office extensions is to create additional accommodation for
administrative activities. The extension to the existing material recycling facility is for improving
and cleaning recycled products. The proposal as a whole is to improve the efficiency of the current
operations, where it is intended that the improvements will enhance the quality of the recycled
products, provide new recyclable material and reduce the overall amount of waste sent to landfill.
SITE HISTORY
05/50708/FUL - Continued use of land as a waste and recycling plant without complying with
conditions 6,9,13 and 20 (tipping on site restriction, hours of operation, aggregate storage
restriction and storage height) on planning permission 01/43439/FUL – Approved
01/43439/FUL - Waste and recycling treatment plant including 3600 sq.m industrial unit and
admin. building, 2.5m high fence with retaining wall to north boundary, 3.5m wall to east boundary
and 5m high palisade fence to railway - Approved
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to conditions regarding noise
levels, the types of materials to be processed in the proposed extension
Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions regarding oil storage and drainage
Network Rail – No objections
Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Society – Consider whether it would be appropriate to require
a Section 106 contribution towards acquisition or enhancement of the canal adjacent to the site
British Waterways – No objections, providing boundary treatments take into consideration the
future restoration of the adjacent canal
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 3rd April 2007
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on 5th April 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
18
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
Canal House, 100 Lissadel Street
Cartwright House, Lissadel Street
J D Raynes & Sons LTD, Lissadel Street
Norweb PLC, Frederick Road
Microsolve Ltd, Ground Floor and Fist floor, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
Lazer Kits, Ground Floor, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
1 Cheltenham Street
Kennedy House, Cheltenham Street
Gloucester Mill, Gloucester Street
Plastic Trade Warehouse Ltd, Cheltenham Street
Cheltenham House, Cheltenham Street
Units 1,3,4,5,7,8 Cheltenham House, Cheltenham Street
38 Broughton Road
44-50 (even) Rockley Gardens
45-51 (odd) Rockley Gardens
1-5 (odd) Rockley Gardens
2-6 (even) Rockley Gardens
Units 2,3,4,5, 76 Broughton Road
Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
First Floor Room 3, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
First Floor Room 4, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
First Floor Room 5, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
JDT Shirts, Ground Part and First Floor Part, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
1-2 Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
First Floor Part Rooms, 1 and 2 Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
Microsolve Ltd, Part rooms 1 and 2 Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
Second Floor Part, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
Ground Floor Part, 14-16 Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
Cumberland Garage, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
Inquam Telecom Ltd, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
First Floor Room 6 and 7, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
Second Floor, 5 Cheltenham Street
Pendleton Radiator Company Salford Ltd, Cheltenham Street
First Floor Olympia Manufacturing, 5 Cheltenham Street
Ground Floor, 5 Cheltenham Street
First Floor, 5 Cheltenham Street
Third Floor, 5 Cheltenham Street
B & J Contracts Ltd, Second Floor Part, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
First Floor Part, Gloucester House, Cheltenham Street
Second Floor, Gloucester House, Cheltenham Street
Speedy Products Ltd, Cheltenham Street
10 Cheltenham Street
Speedy House, Cheltenham Street
Travis Perkins Ltd, Lissadel Street
Cranbich Ltd, Lissadel Street
19
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
M H Excavations, Cheltenham Street
Old Coach House, Cheltenham Street
Basement 5, Cheltenham Street
5 Cheltenham Street
Surface Solutions Ltd, Part Second Floor, Cumberland House, Lissadel Street
The Frame People, Gloucester House, Cheltenham Street
Unit 1, 76 Broughton Road
Gardner House, Cheltenham Street
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity have been received. The
following issues have been raised:Noise nuisance
Smell
Litter
Infestation of flies
Dust
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 - Quality in New Development
EQ4 - Principles Governing a Regional Approach to Sustainable Waste
Management
EQ5 - A Regional Approach to Waste Management
PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE
PPS10 – Planning for Sustainable Waste Management
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:DES1 – Respecting Context
A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network
EN17 – Pollution Control
W1 – Waste Management
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
20
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
EM10 – A Regional Approach to Waste Management
EM11 – Waste Management Principles
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the proposed development on
visual and residential amenity, the environment in terms of noise nuisance, smell, vermin, dust,
vibration and the existing highway network.
The Government’s overall approach to planning and waste management is set out in
Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) which provides advice on how the planning system
should contribute to sustainable waste management through the provision of appropriate
sites for waste management facilities and the effective control of environmental effects.
Policy W1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan reiterates this and requires proposals
amongst other criteria to be consistent with the principle of seeking to dispose of waste;
have an unacceptable impact on health, residential amenity or the amenity of other
environmentally sensitive uses; have an unacceptable impact or would cause unacceptable
harm to, the water environment; have an unacceptable impact on the highway network, not
make satisfactory provision for screening and landscaping of the site whilst it is being used
for waste management
The principle of waste management has already been established on this site by the granting of the
original application for the materials recycling facility. As no additional waste is to be imported
and the vehicular movements are to remain as existing, it is considered that there would be no
unacceptable impact on health; residential amenity in terms of noise nuisance, flies, odour or dust;
water environment or the highway network in accordance with Policy W1 of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
Policy EN17 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan relates to pollution control and considers
that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute towards a significant
increase in pollution to the air by reason of noise, odour, artificial light or vibration, will not be
permitted unless they include mitigation measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the
development.
The application relates to the erection of an extension to the existing material recycling facility
within which glass, plastics and cans collected during kerbside collections will be sorted. Within
the building will be located various plant and machinery. Although it is felt that the type of
material, which is to be processed within the proposed building, will not create additional problems
in terms of flies, odour or dust there is concern regarding noise. The Strategic Director of
Environmental Services has received complaints regarding the level of noise from the site and this
proposal will introduce more plant and machinery onto the site, albeit within an enclosed building.
However it is considered that the matter can be controlled by the appropriate design of the building
and the restriction of hours of operation.
21
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
The nearest residential properties are situated off Lissadel Street on Rockley Gardens
approximately 70m away from the site boundary. Concerns regarding an infestation of flies, noise,
smell, litter and dust have been raised in the letters of objections received. Such concerns can be
dealt by the Environment Agency under the Waste Management Licence for the recycling facility,
Environmental Health legislation and planning condition on any grant of permssion. Following
correspondence with the Environment Agency, JWS currently have measures in place such as
continual spraying during dry periods, keeping stocks down and visits form Rentokil in order to
overcome the concerns raised. On this basis it is felt that the proposal would not have a detrimental
impact on residential amenity and satisfactorily complies with Policy EN17 of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that developments respond to
their physical context and respects the positive character of the local area. In assessing applications
regard should be had to the existing landscape; the character scale and pattern of streets and
building plots; the relationship to existing buildings; the impact, on and quality of views; the scale
of the proposed development; the improvement of the existing townscape and public space; the
quality of proposed materials and their appropriateness; and the functional compatibility with
adjoining land uses.
The proposal consists of an extension to the existing material recycling facility built of cladding to
match the existing building. The existing office building is constructed of red brick and natural
slate roofing materials. The application form and Design and Access Statement states that the
proposed office extensions are to be built of materials to match the existing. Visually the proposal
is considered to be acceptable and on any grant of permission the proposed materials of
construction can be conditioned. It is considered that the proposed dormer windows, which do not
project beyond the ridge of the office building, do not over dominate the roof form and overall are
centrally placed therefore do not have a detrimental effect on the roofscape. The proposal is
situated adjacent to the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal. As this is an extension to the existing
materials recycling facility with existing boundary treatments, it is considered that no unacceptable
impact would be caused to the canal and therefore would not warrant the applicant entering into a
section 106 to provide contributions towards its acquisition or enhancement. The proposal in terms
of size, scale, siting and design is acceptable and it is considered that the proposal would not have a
detrimental impact on visual or residential amenity and therefore complies satisfactorily with
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Policy A8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that developments should not have
an unacceptable impact on the highway network. In assessing applications, development will not
be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the ability of the
Strategic Route Network to accommodate appropriate traffic flows; or cause an unacceptable
restriction to the movement of vehicles along Abnormal Load Routes.
Access to the site is via the existing 10m wide access point off Frederick Road, with parking and
turning provisions within the site. The applicant (JWS) assert that they cannot increase the amount
of waste, which is handled on the site as a result of this proposed development and therefore it will
not lead to an increase in vehicular movements. Given the access, parking provisions and turning
22
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
facilities within the site, it is felt that the proposal is in accordance with Policy A8 and would not
have a detrimental impact on highway or pedestrian safety.
CONCLUSION
In summary, this is an extension to an existing recycling facility and offices. It is not considered
that the proposal will have an undue impact on the visual amenity of the host buildings or the area,
the residential amenity of owner/occupiers of adjacent residential dwellings or highway safety. In
accordance with Polices DES1, A8, EN17 and W1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and
guidance contained in PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management, conditional full
permission is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Standard Condition D01B Materials to Match
3. The site shall be drained by a separate system of foul and surface water drainage, with all clean
roof and surface water being kept separate from foul water, details of which shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
4. The rating level (LAeq,T) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with this development,
when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90,T) by more
than -5dB at any time when measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises in Lissadel Street.
'T' refers to any 1 hour period between 07.00hrs and 23.00hrs, between 23.00hrs and 07.00hrs
the following day, 'T' refers to any 5 minute period. Noise measurements and assessments shall
be carried out according to BS4142; 1997.
5. The rating level of the noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the existing background
noise determined to be 50dBL(A90,1h) between 0700 and 1900 and 44dBL(A90,1h) between
1900 and 2300 by more than 5dB. The noise level shall be measured at the nearest residential
dwelling on Lissadel Street. The measurement and assessment shall be made according to
BS4142:1997 "Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas"
6. Standard Condition C01Y Landscaping
7. There shall be no working in the extension to the materials recycling facility hereby approved
outside the hours of 0600 to 2300 Monday to Friday inclusive or 0700 to 1400 Saturday,
Sunday or Bank Holidays. There shall be no working of materials externally except between
the hours of 0730 to 2100 Monday to Friday inclusive or 0800 to 1400 Saturday, Sunday or
Bank Holidays. Vehicular movements outside of these 'working of material' hours shall be
23
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
limited to access and egress to the site only with no unloading or other activities permitted
except when wholly contained within the extension to the materials recycling facility.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. In the interest of the proper drainage of the site in accordance with policy EN17 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. To ensure that the amenities of nearby residents and the character of the locality are not
adversely affected by noise and nuisance in accordance with policies DES1, EN17 and W1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. To ensure that the amenities of nearby residents and the character of the locality are not
adversely affected by noise and nuisance in accordance with policies DES1, EN17 and W1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
7. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policies DES 1, EN17 and W1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant/developer is advised to contact the Greater Manchester Geological Unit (Tel:
0161 275 7150)
2. The applicant is advised that they ensure that the existing foul drainage system is in good state
of repair, regularly desludged and of sufficient capacity to deal with any potential increase in
flow and loading which may occur as a result of this proposal.
3. The applicant is advised that where it is proposed to store more that 200 litres of any type of oil
on site it must be stored in accordance with the Control of Pollution (oil storage) (England)
Regulations 2001. Drums and barrels can be kept in drip trays if the drip tray is capable of
retaining 25% of the total capacity of all oil stored.
4. The applicant is advised that the adjacent Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal is to be restored
in the near future and therefore any boudary treatments should take this into consideration.
24
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Following the inspection by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel some uncertainty
was raised about the distance between the proposed extension and the property at the rear (6 The
Walled Gardens). The following will clarify my initial analysis.
The proposed two storey side extension does not project beyond the rear elevation of the
existing property
The distance maintained between the rear elevation of the proposed two storey extension
and the rear elevation of no.6 would be 19m at the most and 16m at the least.
The distance maintained between the proposed walk in wardrobe window and the facing
bedroom window would be 19m.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At the meeting of the Panel held on 2nd August 2007 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
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
25
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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
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:
i.
ii.
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
26
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Housing Extensions
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Trees and Development
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
27
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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.
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
6th September 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
29
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
amended Arboricultural Survey details the removal of the four trees that will be directly affected by
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. Replacement tree(s) shall be planted on a 2 for 1 basis in the period from November to March,
following the felling of the protected tree(s), hereby granted consent, and this condition shall
not be considered to have been complied with until the replacement tree(s) have been
established to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
4. Notwithstanding the submitted arboricultural reports dated April 2007 an arboricultural
method statement detailing the Root Protection Areas, proposed construction of hardstanding
30
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
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)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R004B 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:
07/54876/FUL
APPLICANT:
Haslam Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
Former Builders Yard Brakesmere Grove/Haysbrook Avenue
Worsley MANCHESTER M28 6AY
PROPOSAL:
Erection of four-three storey dwellings, 21 two storey dwellings
and one three storey building comprising six apartments
together with associated landscaping, car parking and
construction of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses.
WARD:
Little Hulton
31
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
At the Panel meeting on 16th August 2007, Members were minded to approve the application in
accordance with officer recommendation following the extended consultation period.
One further letter of objection has been received, this raises the following concerns:
Require reassurance that the brick wall facing properties within Brakesmere Grove is
continuous from the top of Brakesmere to the bottom of Brakesmere so that there will be no
access/egress by means of ‘back gate’ from the rear of properties onto Brakesmere. Also that
this will not leave the possibility open of such a gate being developed at a later date into a
driveway entrance – A condition relating to the submission of a landscaping scheme would be
attached to any planning consent, this requires details of all boundary treatments. With regards
to Brakesmere Grove, this is not a classified road and therefore no permission would be
required to create an access onto Brakesmere Grove in the future. However, all properties have
an allocated car parking space to the front of the site and it is not considered reasonable to
attach a condition removing permitted development rights in this instance.
Require reassurance that the barrier to the proposed car park at the bottom of Brakesmere will
not just be an up and over barrier but will be a full sized double gate pass issued entry. Require
information regarding how long this will be managed for. Concern that once the development
is complete the developer will manage this for a short period and then leave it to its own devices
– The Crime Prevention Plan states that ‘vehicular gates operated by a key fob/proximity
reader system, with no automatic egress (ie. Access control both ‘in’ and ‘out’)’ would be
provided for the car park for the apartment block. Condition 7 ensures that the crime
prevention plan be implemented prior to first occupation of the residential units. How the
scheme will be managed is not a material planning consideration.
Where is the collection point for the wheelie bins from the apartment block – the refuse
collection is situated within the car park for the apartment blocks.
Do not have sight of the elevation opposite properties within Brakesmere Grove – whilst a
streetscene elevation has not been submitted, elevations have been submitted of each of the
properties forming part of this elevation.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of a former builders yard at Haysbrook Avenue/Brakesmere
Grove close to the Little Hulton district centre. The site is bounded by residential property to the
east and west, to the north is an office building beyond which is Haysbrook Avenue and the district
centre. To the south is open land within the grounds of Woodlands Hospital. The access to the site
would be from Haysbrook Avenue. The proposal comprises 4, four bedroom, three storey
dwellings, 21, three bedroom, two storey dwellings and 1, three storey building comprising 6, two
bedroom apartments.
32
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
It is proposed that a 2.1 metre high timber close boarded fence with 300 mm high trellis form the
western boundary to the site. The applicant has confirmed that no area of land would exist between
new and old fencing. Plot divisions will consist of 1.8 metre high timber fence. The north, south
and eastern boundaries would consist of a 2.1 metre high timber fence. Properties adjacent to rear
access lanes would be bounded by a 2.1 metre high timber close boarded fence with 300 mm high
trellis.
SITE HISTORY
96/35560/OUT – Outline planning application for residential development – Permitted.
99/40108/OUT - Renewal of outline planning permission (96/35560/OUT) for the erection of a
residential development – Permitted.
02/45282/OUT - Renewal of outline planning permission (99/40108/OUT) for the erection of a
residential development – Permitted.
05/51946/OUT - Renewal of outline planning application (02/45282/OUT) for development of
land for residential purposes – Permitted.
06/52239/REM - Details of the siting, design and external appearance of 10-three storey town
houses, 12- two storey dwellings and one three storey building comprising nine apartments together
with associated landscaping, car parking and construction of new vehicular access – Withdrawn.
07/54021/FUL - Construction of a new vehicular and pedestrian access – Permitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objection in principle but recommends the attachment of a condition
relating to a desk study.
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no response received to date.
GMGU –
Advise that conditions be attached relating to contaminated land with an associated
informative and a condition relating to construction/demolition site working hour
United Utilities – no response received to date.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 28th June 2007.
A notice was displayed in the local press on 28th June 2007
33
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Court Welfare Services, Haysbrook Avenue
1, 3, 21 Haysbrook Avenue
Wicheves, Haysbrook Avenue
2 – 6 (evens) Brakesmere Grove
30, 30A, 32A, 34A, 34, 36A, 36, 38A, 38, 40A, 40, 42A, 42, 44A, 44, 46A, 46, 48A, 48
Hulton District Centre
Little Hulton Post Office, 32 Hulton District Centre
15 – 31 (odds) Armitage Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received in response to the application publicity. The following
concern has been raised:

The fence to be erected on the western side will not run along the end of the back gardens
leaving a strip of land which will be a sort of no-mans land which will give potential
intruders easy access to the rear of properties and may well become a dumping ground for
rubbish.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policy DP1:
Policy DP3:
Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
ST11 – Location of New Development.
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H4 – Affordable Housing
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
DEV5 - Planning Conditions and Obligations
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1:
Regional Development Principles.
34
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this development are: whether the principle of development is
acceptable; whether the design and appearance is acceptable; the impact on the amenity of local
residents; and highway safety issues.
Principle of Development
The principle of residential development has been established through the previous outline
planning applications.
Policy H1 of the UDP considers that all new housing development will be required to contribute
towards the mix of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.
Since the granting of the previous consent, the Housing Planning Guidance document has been
adopted. Policy HOU1 states that within West Salford, the large majority of dwellings within new
developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments. Policy HOU2 considers that
the majority of new houses should have at least three bedrooms. The proposal includes a variety of
dwelling types and sizes including two bedroom apartments and two, three and four bedroom
houses with 70% of the proposed development consisting of housing and of that housing all of the
properties have three bedrooms or more.
Policy H4 of the UDP considers that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable
housing to meet local needs, development will be required to provide an element of affordable
housing. Policy HOU3 of the Housing Planning Guidance states that housing developments of 25
or more dwellings, 20% of the dwellings should be in the form of affordable housing. The
development proposes 31 units. However, the development site is within reasonable walking
distance of Little Hulton District Centre, and supermarkets on Armitage Avenue. The site is
accessible by public transport with bus stops being located on Manchester Road (A6) and Armitage
Avenue. Furthermore, there is a lengthy history including an extant permission for residential
development (reference: 05/51946/OUT) which is a material planning consideration. In view of
the above, it is considered that not providing any affordable housing is acceptable in this instance.
Design and Appearance
Policy DES10 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property
security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors including the
provision of security features.
A Crime Prevention Plan prepared by the Police Architectural Liaison Unit has been submitted in
support of the application. This advises that: the gable walls of plots 1, 9 and 31 should be
protected by some defensible space or the inclusion of first floor windows; the recessed entrance
doors to house type 1264 would be brought forward to allow unobstructed views of the entrance
from the street; and the dedicated parking spaces should be directly in front of the houses they
serve.
35
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
Plots 1, 9 and 31 all have first floor windows in their gable ends and the dedicated parking spaces
for plots 29, 30 and 31 have been switched with visitors spaces so that they are in front of the
properties.
Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect the
positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards local identity and
distinctiveness.
The existing properties in the immediate area are a mix of semi-detached houses and terraced
properties. This scheme provides a mix of dwelling types to increase housing choice. The layout is
such to allow accessibility and ease of movement whilst maintaining separation distances and
providing car parking provision and sufficient private amenity space for future occupiers. The
layout of the site is acceptable. It is unfortunate that the properties of Brakesmere Grove will face
the rear of proposed properties plots 10-15. However, it was as a direct result of consultation with
these residents that the scheme was altered in this way due to the access into the sit4 being provided
from Hayesbrook Avenue. The angled parking bays are welcomed particularly where the inclusion
of street trees is shown as this will soften the impact of parked vehicles in the front of the elevation.
I am satisfied that the design of the proposal is acceptable.
It is recommended that a condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted
and approved prior to the commencement of development would be attached to any planning
consent to ensure that they accord with those of surrounding buildings and that they are of a suitable
high quality.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact upon the
visual amenity of the area in accordance with Policy DES1.
Amenity
Policy DES7 considers that all new development would not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
The neighbouring residential properties are located to the east and west of the site. The layout of
the proposed development ensures that the Council’s minimum separation distances are
maintained. It is therefore considered that these distances are sufficient to ensure that the proposed
buildings would not be overbearing, reduce the amount of light existing residents currently receive
or result in neighbouring residents being overlooked. Consequently neighbouring residents would
not experience an unacceptable reduction in the residential amenity they currently enjoy. This also
ensures future occupiers will also have privacy and not be overlooked by existing properties. Each
town house and semi-detached dwelling has a rear garden and the apartments have amenity space
for future residents. It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with the above policies.
Highway Safety and Parking Issues
36
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact on highway safety. The principle for the access has already been established through the
granting of planning application 07/54021/FUL.
Policy A10 states that the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
A total of 41 car parking spaces are proposed and four of the properties have integral garages
equating to a total of 45 spaces. Given the total number of units proposed (31), the proposed level
of car parking presents approximately 1.5 spaces per unit and the proposed level of car parking is
acceptable, particularly given the site’s proximity to Armitage Avenue and Manchester Road and a
number of bus services. The proposed provision is in accordance with the maximum car parking
standards advocated within the UDP.
Contribution
Policy H8 requires adequate provision of formal and informal open space within housing
development. The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document sets out the planning
contributions required.
In accordance with the above policy, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution of £131,386
plus a 2.5% administration fee towards public open space in the vicinity of the site; improvements
to the city’s public realm, heritage and infrastructure; the training of local residents in construction
skills; and the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions. I have attached a condition requiring such a
contribution. I am therefore satisfied that the residents of the proposed development would have
access to adequate open space and I have no objections to the application in this regard.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that this proposal incorporates a mix of dwelling types and sizes, with
good design. I do not consider that there would be an unacceptable impact on the amenity of
existing residents. The application accords with the relevant policies of the UDP and I therefore
recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION
That the application be approved and that authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer
and Support Services to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D03Y
37
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
3. Standard Condition C01Y
4. Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the car parking spaces shown on
the approved plan (PL02 F) shall be constructed and laid out to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority and shall be made available at all times.
5. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning
Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that
commuted sums as required by Policy DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
and the policies contained within the Planning Obligations SPD, will be paid to the Local
Planning Authority for improvements to and maintenance of existing open space provision and
public realm, infrastructure and heritage and training programmes for local construction
workers.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a Preliminary Risk
Assessment report for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority to assess the
potential risk of land contamination. This report must include a conceptual model and a site
walk over and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should a potential risk
be identified then:
i. Submit a Site Investigation report for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of land contamination on site
and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors focusing primarily on
risks to human health and the wider environment; and
ii. Proposed Remedial Works if required shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Where applicable, the Remedial Works shall be incorporated by the
developer during the course of construction, prior to occupation of the development and
iii. A Verification Report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning
Authority. The Verification Report shall validate that all remedial works undertaken on site
were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
7. The crime prevention plan dated August 2007 shall be implemented prior to the first
occupation of the development hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
38
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
2. Standard Reason R004B
3. Standard Reason R004B
4. Standard Reason R012B
5. To ensure that the development hereby approved is successful and sustainable and that it meets
the need for new and improved facilities and infrastructure it generates. This is in accordance
with Policy DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
6. Standard Reason R028B
7. In the interest of design and crime in accordance with Policy DES10 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday - Friday 08:00 - 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 - 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays.
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
2. 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.
APPLICATION No:
07/54961/ADV
APPLICANT:
Highway Media UK Ltd
LOCATION:
Unit G3 Weaste Trading Estate Weaste Lane Salford
PROPOSAL:
Display of one 48 sheet advertisement display panel
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
39
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an industrial unit (G3) which fronts the northern side of the M602 at
Weaste. The unit is located within Weaste Industrial Estate. The unit itself is separated from the
M602 by a service road. The building is approximately two stories in height and has a blank brick
wall to which it is proposed to attach a 48 sheet advertisement hoarding.
The hoarding would measure approximately 6m in length and 3m in height, and would be attached
to the gable end of an industrial unit which faces the east-bound carriageway of the M602 at
approximately 3m above ground level.
The application is further to a previous application submitted in 2006 which proposed the retention
of a 96 sheet hoarding measuring approximately 12.4m in length by 3.4 metres in height.
SITE HISTORY
06/52423/ADV – Retention of one 96 sheet advertisement Panel – Application Refused 12/05/06
APP/U4230/H/06/1199259 – Appeal relating to the above refusal- Appeal Dismissed by Inspector
22/09/06
CONSULTATIONS
Highways Agency- Recommendation that the proposal should be refused as the proposal would
increase the potential for accidents on the M602 Motorway, and as such would be detrimental to the
safety and free flow of traffic.
Head of Engineering and Highways – No objections
Central Salford URC- No Response
PUBLICITY
The following neighbouring occupiers was notified by letter:
Alan Chew Ltd, St Lukes Road, Salford 5
The proposed sign has had no other publicity
REPRESENTATIONS
There have been no representations received in respect of the application.
40
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE
PPG19 – Outdoor Advertisement Control
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV2 - Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact the proposed advertisements
would have on amenity and public safety.
PPG19 states that in assessing advertisements regard must be had to amenity and public safety.
DEV2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan reiterates this and states that in assessing
proposals for advertisement consent, advertisements will need to be of a size and scale consistent
with their surroundings; respect the sensitivity of the location; avoid creating signage clutter; avoid
the use of intense or intermittent illumination, where this would have a negative material impact on
visual amenity or highway safety; and where appropriate, incorporate artistic features, landscaping
and decorative fencing.
Where advertisements are located on, or immediately adjacent to an existing building or structure,
they will be required to appear as an integral feature of the building, not obscure or otherwise
detract from any important architectural feature/design or character and respect the character of the
building.
Amenity
The signage has been reduced significantly from the 96 sheet hoarding that was proposed for
retention in the previous application. The revised hoarding respects the character and scale of the
host building and would be subordinate in terms of size and location, being located away from the
parapets and windows of the elevation of this building.
In addition the host building has little character of note, and is not considered that the hoarding
would compete with the buildings design or would be overbearing in relation to the character of this
building.
Whilst there is other signage including free-standing signage within the vicinity, it is not
considered, in this instance, that the proposal would create an unduly cluttered locality.
The location is not readily visible from adjacent residential properties, with the most direct views
being from across the M602 motorway. In view of this, it is not considered that the proposal would
41
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
be of detriment to the visual amenities of adjacent residential areas. It is considered that the erection
of the hoarding would respect the quality and character of the locality.
Public safety
As stated above, the application is further to a previous application submitted in 2006, which
proposed the retention of a 96 sheet hoarding measuring approximately 12.4m in length by 3.4
metres in height. This was approximately twice the size of the hoarding under consideration in this
application.
The application was refused on two grounds, the first relating to the fact that the hoarding would be
unduly dominant which, in conjunction with other hoardings in the vicinity, would result in a
cluttered appearance which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area.
These issues, in relation to the revised proposal are discussed above, where it is concluded that the
revised proposal would not be of detriment to the visual amenities of adjacent residential areas, and
it is considered that the erection of the hoarding would respect the quality and character of the
locality.
The second reason was based on an objection from the Highways Agency, and stated that the
hoarding would be detrimental to public safety because it would distract and create a hazard to
drivers on the M602 motorway
In a subsequent appeal against the former application which was dismissed, the inspector upheld
the first of Council’s reasons for refusal relating to visual amenity, but did not concur with the
second regarding highway safety concerns, stating that;
‘I have noted the Highway Authority’s comments about the effect of the panel on public safety but in
this instance I do not share their concern’
The Inspector further comments;
‘I accept that the panel is parallel to a busy motorway. However, it would still be readily visible to
passing drivers and in my opinion they would be able to easily assimilate the static contents of a
single panel without being distracted from prevailing road or traffic conditions even in a stop/start
situation when the traffic is very heavy’
The comments made by the Inspector must be considered as a material consideration in this
application.
The Highways Agency have raised two main concerns in this application:

‘The sign is positioned in a parallel position to the M602 motorway. As a result motorists
will not be able to view the advertising panel and its contents until they are much nearer to
the sign. Signs are usually positioned so that they face oncoming traffic, however on this
42
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

6th September 2007
instance the positioning of the sign means the motorist would have to significantly move
their head position at a late stage to the direction of the advertisement panel consequently
facing away from their usual driving vision’
‘The motorist’s view of the advertisement will be constantly interrupted by the traffic
around them and by traffic on the adjacent carriageway. This can be particularly relevant
for this section of the M602 as it is used by a large number of high-sided heavy goods
vehicles’
In light of the comments made by the inspector on the previous appeal at the site, the question was
put to the Highways Agency, whether in their view, this proposal was likely to be more dangerous
in terms of highway and public safety than the previous application at the site, which was for the
retention of a 96 sheet advertisement panel.
In response the Highways Agency stated;
‘I’m not saying that this sign will be more dangerous than the previous application at this property,
the impact will be the same with the Highways Agency believing the signs to be a distraction to
motorists on the M602 no matter what size the sign is’
It is considered that as the proposed sign is approximately half the size of that proposed for
retention in the previous application, and that the Highways Agency continues to object to the
application on the same grounds, that the inspectors view on public/highway safety in the previous
appeal is valid in this application, and must be taken into account.
The proposed sign is a single-sided, non-illuminated structure which will be seen within the context
of the commercial buildings and existing free-standing hoardings on the Weaste Industrial Estate.
The sign will be attached to a building which is set back from the boundary with the adjacent M602
motorway.
In view of the above, it is not considered that a refusal of this application could be supported on
public/highway safety grounds, as it is likely on appeal that the inspector would reach a similar
conclusion as in the previous application.
CONCLUSION
It is considered in light of the inspector’s comments on the previous proposal, and that the effects
on visual amenities of the area are considered acceptable in this application, that both areas of
concern previously expressed by the Council have been adequately addressed.
It is considered that the revised proposal for a 48 sheet hoarding would not be detrimental to visual
amenities or to public/highway safety. The proposal complies satisfactorily with the relevant
policy of the UDP and the guidance contained in PPG19, and as such, it is recommended that
advertisement consent be granted.
43
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition K01S
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R034A
APPLICATION No:
07/55154/FUL
APPLICANT:
S Bird
LOCATION:
Land Between 35 And 41 Gore Crescent Salford M5 5LT
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a terrace of three dwellings together with associated
car parking and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the erection of three terraces on the site of 37 and 39 Gore Crescent.
The site for development consists of two plots, formerly occupied by a pair of semi detached
dwellings which were demolished due to subsidence in 2003. One half of the site at 37 Gore
Crescent was granted consent for a single detached dwelling in 2006. (Ref: 06/53661/FUL) and the
plot which was formerly occupied by number 39 was granted permission for a single detached
dwelling on 6th July 2007 (Ref: 07/54749/FUL). A further application for three town houses (Ref:
07/54162/FUL) was submitted also in 2007 however this was refused on the grounds that its
44
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
massing and design would be out of character with the area and would be an obtrusive feature in the
streetscene contrary to Policy DES1 of the Adopted UDP.
To the west of the site are a series of pairs of semi-detached houses with 41 Gore Crescent being the
nearest property. To the East is 35 Gore Crescent, which is one half of a pair of semi detached
dwellings on a corner plot at the junction of Kensington Drive.
The rear elevations and windows of these dwellings face the development site at a 45 degree angle.
There are semi-detached houses on the opposite side of Gore Crescent. To the South of the site
there is vacant land. The site is currently secured by mesh fencing to the front and a new timber
fence to the Eastern Boundary. It is proposed that new timber fencing is constructed to the Western
and Southern Boundaries of the site and a 0.6m high brick walls with decorative steel gates to the
front of the site.
The design of the dwellings have been altered from that which was previously refused as the roof
shape has been changed to a hip and the fenestration and the design of the windows have been
changed to more closely resemble those of the nearby dwellings.
The proposed dwellings would have an eaves and ridge height which matches the existing houses in
the immediate locality and would be 2 storeys in height. The proposed materials are brick and slate
to match existing dwellings in the area. The design of the dwellings incorporates soldier course
above front entrance doors. The proposed dwellings have an area of private garden to the rear and a
driveway to the front. It is proposed that the dwellings will each have three bedrooms.
There are some trees on the site, however these are not mature and not of any special amenity value
which would warrant protection by a Tree Preservation Order.
SITE HISTORY
07/54749/FUL - Erection of a detached dwelling and alteration to existing vehicular access (Site of
39 Gore Crescent)
APPROVED
07/54162/FUL - Erection of a terrace of three dwellings together with associated car parking and
construction of new vehicular access
REFUSED
06/53661/FUL - Erection of one detached dwelling (Site of 37 Gore Crescent) – APPROVED
03/45672/DEMCON - Prior notification for the demolition of the existing dwellings
APPROVED
CONSULTATIONS
45
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
Strategic Director of Environmental Services
No comments received to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
11-19 (incl. 13A) Kensington Drive (odds)
35 Gore Crescent
41- 48 Gore Crescent (odds and evens)
50& 52 Gore Crescent.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received nine letter of objection to date. The following issues have been raised:
 The building is grossly overbearing
 The area is characterised by semi-detached dwellings and not terraces
 Loss of light
 The car parking and driveway will destroy the fabric of the road and affect neighbour’s
access
 The proposed dwellings would look out of place in relation to other dwellings in the
immediate locality.
 The proposal does not have regard to Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development
Plan.
 The proposal does not seek to locate the right type of housing in the area as set out within
the Unitary Development Plan.
Councillor Ainsworth has commented on the lack of detail of the proposed treatments of the
footpath/verge and that this may lead to harm being caused to pedestrians and the streetscape
environment. Councillor Ainsworth has suggested that three separate crossings need review and
perhaps the whole could be dealt with as a ‘dropped’ detail and that the area could be paved or
planting beds created. The issue of the bin stores was also raised by the councillor in that if doors
are not attached ‘frontage unsightliness’ may occur. Councillor Ainsworth has also requested that
the issue of visitor parking is addressed and asked how this will be controlled without prejudice to
highway safety.
RSS Policies
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Areas
ST11 Location of New Development
A2
Cyclists Pedestrians and the Disabled
46
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
H1
A10
6th September 2007
Provision of New Housing Development
Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in New Development.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issues associated with this proposal are the design of the dwellings including their height,
whether the building as a whole would be acceptable in this particular location, if the proposal
would unduly increase traffic volumes or congestion in the area, and whether the development
would have an unacceptable impact upon the visual or residential amenity of the area and whether
sufficient amenity would be provided for future occupants of the development.
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all developments should
respect the context of the area within which they are situated. In particular, regard should be had to
the impact upon and relationship to the existing landscape, the character, scale and pattern of streets
and building plots, the relationship to existing buildings and features that contribute to townscape
quality, the quality of the proposed materials and the functional compatibility with adjoining land
uses.
Policy DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all new developments and
alterations and extensions to existing buildings will be required to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. It also
requires that permission is not granted for development where it would have an unacceptable
impact upon the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
Policy ST11 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that sites are brought forward for
development in a sequential order. The most preferable sites being existing buildings which can be
re-used or converted, or upon previously developed land which is well-served by a range of means
of transport, particularly walking cycling and public transport, and which are well related to
housing, employment, services and infrastructure.
Policy H1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that new housing development
should provide a high quality residential environment and an adequate level of amenity, in
particular focussing upon the size of the development, the physical characteristics of the site and the
accessibility of the site and its location in relation to jobs and facilities.
Policy A2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all new development makes
adequate provision for cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled.
Policy A10 requires developments to make adequate minimum provision for disabled drivers,
cyclists, motorcyclists and states that maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
Policy HOU1 of the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance states that within West
Salford, Broughton Park, Claremont and the Northern part of Weaste and Seedley, the large
majority of dwellings should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
47
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
Policy HOU2 states that the majority of new dwellings should provide a minimum of three
bedrooms.
Policy DP1 states that new development and other investment in infrastructure and services should
be located so as to make the most effective use of land, promote appropriate mixes of uses within a
site and its wider neighbourhood, make efficient use of transport facilities and assist
people to meet their needs locally.
Location of the proposed development
The proposed development would involve the re-use of brownfield land therefore would be in
accordance with Criterion 2 of Policy ST11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the
guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) which seeks to prioritise the
development of such land over land which has not been previously developed (Greenfield land).
The site is within the ward of Weaste and Seedley and is within Central Salford. In this area it is
preferable that a mix of dwellings is provided with the most accessible locations being occupied by
apartments. However, it is considered that the dwelling houses are the most appropriate solution for
this site as it is located within a row of houses.
The application site is accessible by foot, bicycle and by a choice of means of public transport to a
number of centres including Salford, Eccles, and Swinton. I consider that the site is well served by
a wide range of facilities and employment and therefore would be in accordance with Policy ST11
of The Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
I consider that the positioning of the proposed dwelling would respect the general building line and
would not unduly affect the character of the area. I consider that the proposed use would be in
keeping with the adjoining land uses and the overall character of the area. The design of the
dwellings are such that they would not look out of place and it is considered that given ridge and
eaves height match adjacent dwellings that the proposal would not have a significant or negative
effect upon the character of the area or the streetscene. I consider that alterations to the shape of the
building and the fenestration make the proposed row of dwellings appear more in keeping with
other properties within the local area than that which was previously proposed. Therefore I am of
the opinion that the development would be in accordance with Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
Traffic Congestion and On-Street Parking
Objections have been raised relating the potential increase in on-street parking caused by the
development. The proposal incorporates at least one car parking space for each dwelling, which is
comparable to other properties in the area and I am satisfied that there would be adequate off street
parking for also available. I have no objections to the proposal on highway safety grounds.
Amenity
Objections have been raised in relation to a loss of light and overshadowing and that the building
will be overbearing. There would remain 22 metres from the front of the proposed building to the
habitable room windows of houses opposite. I do not consider therefore that there would be any
48
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
detrimental impact on these neighbours. Although the proposed building would be within one
metre of the side boundaries of the site, there are no habitable room windows proposed in the side
elevations of the building. There are no habitable room windows in the side elevation of the
adjacent property at number 41. Number 35 Gore Crescent is set at a 45 degree angle from the
proposed building and at its closest point there would be 13 metres between number 35 and the
proposed building. There are also no windows proposed for the side elevation facing number 35.
For these reasons I do not consider that there would be any loss of amenity to neighbours in terms
of privacy and overlooking. I consider that the raised decking area to the rear of the proposed
dwellings would not have a significant effect or create any detrimental overlooking as it is intended
only to give level access to the rear gardens due to the lie of the land. The height of the decking is
not specified within the planning application and therefore I have added a condition to the
recommendation to require that details of the height of the decking are first submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The proposed dwellings would extend past the rear building line of number 41 by 3.2m. Ther3
would be a distance of 3.6m between the properties. It is considered that the difference is not such
that it would detrimentally impact upon the amenity of the adjacent neighbour and that the distance
between the proposed building and number 41 is sufficient to remove any possibility of
overshadowing.
The development includes the provision of a garden for each of the properties to the rear which
would provide an adequate amount of private amenity space. It is also considered that the proposed
development would allow a sufficient level of residential amenity for future occupiers in terms of
privacy, light and space. I therefore consider that the proposal would be in accordance with Policy
DES7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
There are some trees to the rear of the site, however these are small and not mature and have no
special amenity value, therefore it is considered that they are not worthy of protection by a Tree
Preservation Order. The development does not include the removal of any of the trees on the site.
Other objections included the design of the dwelling being terraces in an area which is
predominantly semi-detached or detached dwellings. I do not consider that the house type would
have a significant detrimental impact upon the character of the area and would, in fact, contribute
towards the mix in the area.
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposed development would not have a visually intrusive impact nor
would it be an overbearing or obtrusive feature in the streetscene. It is considered that the proposed
development would be in keeping with the character of the local area and would not unduly affect
the amenities of nearby residential occupiers or cause any issues of highway safety. I consider that
the proposal is in accordance with all of the relevant Policies within the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan and Housing Planning Guidance, and that there are no other material
considerations that outweigh those policies.
49
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D03Y
3. Standard Condition M03
4. Prior to first occupation of the dwellings the window within the western elevation of the
development shall be fitted with obscure glazing and shall remain as such thereafter.
5. Standard Condition C01Y
6. Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed timber decking to the rear
shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
scheme shall be implemented according to the approved details.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
3. Standard Reason R024B
4. Standard Reason R005B
5. Standard Reason R004B
6. Standard Reason R005B
APPLICATION No:
07/54808/HH
APPLICANT:
S Lyons
50
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
LOCATION:
3 Hawthorn Drive Salford M6 8FU
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part single/part two storey side extension and single
storey rear extension
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached dwelling on Hawthorn Drive, Salford. The area is
characterised by semi-detached residential dwellings.
The application proposes a part single/part two storey side extension and a single storey rear
extension
The proposed first floor element of the side extension would be set back 2m from the existing front
elevation, the ground floor would be flush with the existing front elevation. It would project 2.6m
from the side elevation, it would be 7.6m in depth, flush with the rear of the dwelling and would be
0.5m from the side boundary with no.5 Hawthorn Drive. It would have an overall height of 7.7m
with a hipped roof. The proposed single storey rear extension would project 2.74m from the main
rear wall and would be 8.4m in width. It would be 0.1m from the side boundary with no.1 Hawthorn
Drive and would be 3.8m in height with a mono-plane roof.
The single storey rear extension would consist of extensions to the dining room and kitchen areas.
The dining room area would consist of french doors with a window either side. The kitchen would
also have a window on the rear elevation and a door. The part single/ part two storey side extension
would consist of a study area and a shower room to the ground floor level and a bedroom with an
en-suite to the first floor level. The study would introduce a window to the front elevation, the
bedroom would introduce a window to the front elevation and the en-suite would introduce a
window to the rear elevation.
PUBLICITY
The following addresses have been notified:
1,4,5 and 6 Hawthorn Drive
2 and 4 Acacia Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 4 letters of objection, two of them from the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling and
one from Councillor Ainsworth, who has requested this application be reported to panel. The
following concerns have been raised:
51
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL








6th September 2007
Loss of light
Loss of privacy
The 2.74m proposed length of extension projects beyond a 45 degree line drawn from
the mid point of the combined door and window frame serving the main living room to
number 1.
The nature of the proposed extension would be such that it would provide a little over 4
metres between the window to the kitchen at number 1.
The proximity of the proposed dining area extension to the common/dividing
boundary.
The impact of the dining area extension on the sitting area at number 1.
Impact on pond at number 1.
The proposal may prevent a similar extension to number 1.
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
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 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 rear and side of the original dwelling, it is visible from the street
scene and visible from the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. It is considered that the
proposed extension would be similar in character to the original property. Furthermore, the
52
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
proposed scale of the extension would not be an incongruous feature in this setting. In terms of
materials, it is considered that the extension would complement the existing dwelling subject to
their control via condition. The proposed side extension would have a hipped roof to match the
existing roof and it would be 0.6m lower than the existing roof. It is considered that the proposed
extension would comply with the requirements of Policies 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 HE1 of the House Extensions SPD states that planning permission will not normally be
granted for extensions that do not maintain a minimum distance of 21m between facing principal
windows of habitable rooms and a minimum distance of 10.5m between the principal window of
any habitable room of the proposed extension and the common boundary with the facing property if
applicable. The single storey rear extension would have a habitable room window on the rear
elevation for the proposed dining room facing the party boundary with no. 2 Acacia Drive. It would
be 8.3m from the rear boundary, which has a 2m high fence upon this. The proposed rear extension
would be in excess of 17m from the rear elevation of 2 Acacia Drive. Given that the extension is
single storey, and given the existence of a 2m fencing along the common boundary, I am satisfied
that this element would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the neighbouring
occupiers to the rear.
The proposed part single/part two storey side extension would introduce a first floor habitable room
window to the front of the elevation for a bedroom and a ground floor window on the front
elevation for a study. The windows would be 11.2m from the front boundary and it would be in
excess of 21m from facing neighbouring properties. I would therefore not consider the proposal to
have an unacceptable impact on facing neighbouring occupiers in terms of privacy and would be in
accordance with policy HE1.
The part single/part two storey side extension would be introducing a first floor window to the rear
elevation for an en suite. It would be 11m from the party boundary with 2 Acacia Drive and it
would be in excess of 19m from the rear elevation of 2 Acacia Drive. There would be no windows
introduced to the side elevations of the proposal. The living room window on the rear elevation of
no.5 Hawthorn Drive would not be directly facing the proposed development. The proposal would
not project beyond the existing single storey extension at no.5. I would therefore not consider the
proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the living room at no.1 Hawthorn Drive in terms of
loss light and privacy.
Policy HE5 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for single storey rear extensions that project beyond a 45 degree line taken from EITHER:
53
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
The mid point of a principal ground floor window of a habitable room OR
A point 3m along the common boundary from the rear elevation of adjoining or adjacent
dwellings.
Whichever, in relation to a particular adjoining or adjacent dwelling, allows the longer extension.
The proposed single storey rear extension would be 0.5m from the side boundary with no.1, which
upon this is a 1.5m fence. The proposal would project beyond a 45 degree line taken from the mid
point of a principal window of a ground floor habitable room in no.1 Hawthorne Drive. However it
would not project beyond a 45 degree line taken from a point 3m along the common boundary from
the rear elevation of no.1 Hawthorne Drive. Although the proposal does not comply with the first
criteria of policy HE5 it does comply with the second criteria and the policy clearly states
developments must comply with one or the other. I would therefore not consider the proposal to
have an unacceptable impact on the living room area at no.1 Hawthorn Drive.
Upon visiting the occupiers of no.1 Hawthorn Drive it is established that the window that would be
facing the proposed development is for the kitchen, there is no dining table within this room. The
dining room is located at the front of the dwelling. As the window in for a non habitable room I do
not consider this proposal would be unacceptable in terms of loss of light.
Policy HE8 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for a two storey side extension that lies within 1m of the side boundary of the dwelling unless the
first floor element is set back a minimum of 2m from the front main wall of the property or the
ground and first floor elements are set back a minimum of 1m from the front main wall of the
property. The first floor element of the proposed part single/ part two storey side extension would
be set back 2m from the front main wall of the dwelling. Therefore the proposed extension would
comply with policy HE8.
OTHER ISSUES
Impact building work will have on the pond at no.1 Hawthorn Drive.
The proposed development will be wholly contained within the land owned by the applicant.
However some dust may be created from the construction works. However I would not consider
this to be a reason to refuse this proposal.
The proximity of the proposed dining area extension to the common/dividing boundary.
The proposed development would be wholly contained within the land owned by the applicant and
would be 0.5m from the boundary with no.1. I therefore consider the proximity to be acceptable.
The proposal may prevent a similar extension to number 1.
54
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
It is not considered the proposal would restrict the development potential of adjacent neighbours.
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 DES1, DES7 and
DES8 of the adopted UDP.
I therefore recommend this application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D01B
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R007B
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:
07/54962/FUL
APPLICANT:
Padfova Restaurants Ltd
55
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
LOCATION:
Danieli's Restaurant 10
MANCHESTER M28 3JE
Bridgewater
Road
Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of ground floor extension to existing restaurant and
two storey extension (at first and second floor) to form seven
apartments, alterations to elevations and associated car parking
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the existing Danieli’s Restaurant site at 10 Bridgewater Road. The
application site is located on the west side of Bridgewater Road at the corner with Mayfield
Avenue. The site is bounded to the east by Bridgewater Road and commercial A2 services, to the
north by the 3 storey Old Co-op building, which occupies the corner plot between Bridgewater
Road and High Street and contains a range of commercial premises, to the west by a service road
and terraced properties on Mayfield Avenue and to the south by Mayfield Avenue and a 2 1/2
storey council office building.
The proposal is for the refurbishment and extension of the existing restaurant and the erection of 7
apartments at first and second floor levels. The mix of the apartments includes 2x3 bed, 4x2 bed
and 1 x 1 bed.
The proposal also includes provision for 6 garages to the rear accessed off the existing service alley,
one of which would be constructed to meet disabled parking standards. Bin storage would also be
incorporated into the boundary footprint. A secure cycle storage area is proposed between the
garages and the proposed entranceway to the residential units.
This is a resubmission of application 06/53689/FUL which was refused at panel on 7 th December
2006.
SITE HISTORY
06/53689/FUL Erection of a ground floor extension to existing restaurant and two storey extension
(at first and second floor) to form eight apartments, alterations to elevations and associated
carparking – Refused December 2006
00/40357/FUL Erection of extension to existing bar area - Approved August 2000
E/27057 Continued use of premises as A3 without compliance of condition 4 (the use hereby
permitted shall not be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall only be operated between
the hours of 8.00am and midnight on any other day) of planning permission E24823 – Upheld at
Appeal January 2002.
56
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
E/24823 Change of Use from shop (Class A1) to licensed restaurant (Class A3) – Approved March
1989
E/17800 Change of Use from Shop to a Coffee Shop/Sandwich Bar – Refused September 1984
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – No objections subject to conditions
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No comments received to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Units 1-6, Old Co-Op Buildings, High Street
1-15 Bridgewater Road
4-10 Mayfield Avenue (evens)
16 Mayfield Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Increase in car parking requirement
Shortage of existing carparking space
Two storey extension is excessive
Loss of privacy
Loss of light
No market for flats and apartments
Additional waste water may worsen flooding further down Newearth Road
Mayfield Road should be made residents only parking
Councillor Turner has requested that the application be considered before Panel as he has concerns
regarding carparking in the area and the impact of the development on the amenity of the existing
residents.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 Quality in New Development
57
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:

S1/4 Retail and Leisure Development within Town and Neighbourhood Centres
Other policies:











ST1 Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST11 Location of New Development
ST12 Development Density
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
H1 Provision of New Housing Development
A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN16 Contaminated Land
EN17 Pollution Control
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Regional Development Principles
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of residential
development is acceptable in this location; whether the proposed development is of a suitable
design and scale; whether there would be any impact on the amenity of existing or future residents
in the area; whether the proposed level of car parking is sufficient and whether the development
accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Principle of residential development
Adopted policy H1 states that all new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within a local area, residential development should also be of an
appropriate density, provide a high quality residential environment and provide an adequate level
of amenity.
Policy ST12 relates to development density and states that development within the regional centre,
town centres and close to key public transport routes and interchanges will be required to achieve a
high density appropriate to the location and context.
58
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
The proposed application is for the development of 7 residential units within the town centre of
Walkden above an existing A3 use. The density equates to 162 dwellings per hectare. It is
considered that residential units are an appropriate form of development above commercial units
within designated town centres, provided that any potential adverse impact such as noise and fume
extraction can be successfully mitigated against.
Policy HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance states that apartments are likely to be the most
appropriate form of development within the city’s town and neighbourhood centres and will help to
maximise the number of people who have excellent access to local facilities. The proposed
development is located within Walkden town centre and therefore it is considered that apartments
are appropriate in this location.
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 proposal has been amended during the course of the application from 2x 1 bed and 6 x 2bed to
1 x 1bed, 4x 2 bed and 2x 3bed. It is considered that the proposed apartments provide an
appropriate mix of and are therefore in accordance with policy HOU2.
Policy ST11 outlines the criteria for the location of new development. In accordance with policy
ST11 the application would involve the extension and conversion of an existing building sited in a
location well served by public transport links, close to local shops and services.
It is therefore considered that the proposed apartments are acceptable in principle.
Design and scale
Adopted policy DES1 states that all new development will be required to respond to its physical
context, respect the positive character of the local area and contribute to local identity and
distinctiveness. Policy DES 8 states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations to
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 area.
The existing restaurant comprises of a single storey block with a flat roof. It lies adjacent to the
large 2 ½ storey Old Co-Op building which wraps around the corner of Bridgewater Road and High
Street. It is considered that a 3 storey development is acceptable in this town centre location
fronting on to a busy road. The existing Council office building, separated by Mayfield Avenue is 2
½ storey’s in height as are the commercial buildings opposite the development site. The proposed 3
storey building would have a roofline 0.90m lower than that of the adjacent Old Co-Op building.
Therefore, it is considered that the proposed building will not appear over dominant within the
street scene.
59
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
The residential properties on Mayfield Avenue to the rear of the site are 2 storey’s in height and the
proposed development would be set 9m away from the closest property at no. 4 Mayfield Avenue.
It is not considered that the proposed development would be an unduly dominant feature when
considered in context to the properties on Mayfield Avenue and therefore is considered to be of an
acceptable scale.
Around this radial point in Walkden Town Centre it is common to have large 3 storey or 2 ½ storey
building close to the centre with properties decreasing in scale as the streets move away from the
centre. It is considered that this building is in line with this design principle and would be of an
appropriate scale between the Old Co-Op building and the Council offices at 12 Bridgewater Road.
Many of the design cues on the proposed development have been taken from the existing redbrick
buildings within Walkden town centre. These include the use of sash windows with sandstone sills
and lintels as well as a proposed sandstone course band running between the first and second storey.
It is also proposed that the existing restaurant frontage would be upgraded with the insertion of
timber fascias, pilasters and mouldings, which would represent a significant improvement over the
existing frontage.
It is considered that the proposed development complies with the objectives of policies DES1 and
DES8 and respects the character of the surrounding area better than the existing single storey flat
roof building.
Impact on amenity
Adopted Policy DES7 states that all new development, 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 the occupiers or users of
other developments.
There are four habitable room windows in the form of bedrooms facing no. 4 Mayfield Road at a
distance of 9m and the other bedrooms facing onto the proposed roof terrace will face the alleyway
to the rear of Mayfield Avenue. There are no windows in the gable elevation of no. 4 Mayfield
Avenue and therefore it is considered that this distance is acceptable will not have an adverse
impact on the amenity of future residents. The proposed habitable room windows to the front of the
development face the commercial properties opposite at a distance varying between 18m and 21m.
It is considered in this town centre location where there are no habitable rooms opposite that this
distance is acceptable and will not lead to an adverse impact on the amenity of future residents of
the proposed development.
Several letters of objection have been received from residents close to the site who are concerned
that the proposed development would lead to a loss of light to houses on Mayfield Avenue and
would also lead to a loss of privacy.
60
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
No formal sunlight/ daylight studies have been carried out as part of this application. The
application site lies to the east of the terraces on Mayfield Avenue, therefore, any potential
overshadowing would occur in the morning. There are no windows to the gable end of 4 Mayfield
Avenue. Both 4 and 6 Mayfield Avenue benefit from a 2 storey outrigger running the length of their
boundaries, which will already impede light coming from an easterly direction to the other gardens
on Mayfield Avenue. It is therefore not considered that the proposed extension will result in any
significant loss of light to the properties on Mayfield Avenue.
In addition the existing outriggers of 4 and 6 Mayfield Avenue would prevent the proposed
development from being viewed from the gardens of adjacent residents.
Access to the proposed roof terrace would be restricted for maintenance only and is not for use by
future residents of the proposed development. There will be no private amenity space associated
with this development, however, I consider this to be acceptable in this town centre location,
especially given that this did not form a reason for refusal on the previous application.
Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would likely to cause or contribute towards a
significant increase in pollution to the air, water or soil, or by reason of noise, odour, artificial light
or vibration, will not be permitted unless they include mitigation measures.
Although specific details relating to fume extraction have not been submitted as part of this
application, provision has been made for the units to be accommodated in a concealed location
behind the proposed roof terrace, minimising the impact on visual amenity. The proposed fume
extraction units will serve the existing restaurant and the ducts will dispel fumes at roof level. The
Old Co-op contains commercial residents and there are no windows that would be affected by the
installation of fume extraction plants in the proposed location.
Notwithstanding the information provided within the acoustic assessment accompanying the
application, it is considered that information is required regarding the impact of the noise levels
from the existing road. It is recommended that a condition be attached requiring a full assessment of
road traffic noise likely to affect the application site and proposed mitigation measures.
Having had regard to the concerns of local residents I am satisfied that the proposed development
would not compromise the amenity of future or existing residents of the area and is in accordance
with policy DES7 and EN17.
Car parking
Policy A2 requires that provision be made for safe and convenient access for cyclists, pedestrians
and the disabled. Policy A10 sets out the requirements for car, cycle and motorcycle parking in
new developments.
Several residents have raised concerns about the impact that the proposed development would have
on the car parking situation in the local area. There is currently no provision for car parking for staff
or customers at the existing restaurant. There are double yellow lines located directly outside the
61
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
restaurant and to the service yard to the rear. Since the application proposes to reduce the floor area
of the existing restaurant, not increase it, it is not considered that this element of the proposed
development would result in an increase in parking levels in the surrounding area, above the
existing situation.
Reference has also been made to the closure of a public car park on Mayfield Avenue making the
parking situation worse. The car park on Mayfield Avenue has never formally been used by the
Council as a public car park.
Regarding car parking associated with the proposed apartments, 6 out of 7 apartments will have
garages. In addition provision for 2 cycle storage lockers has been made in line with policy A10 of
the Adopted UDP. Given the location of the proposed development to Walkden town centre and
public transport links, it is considered that parking provision is acceptable.
Value added to development
The application has been subject to extensive pre-application discussions prior to its submission. In
addition alterations have been made during the course of the application, which include the
widening of garages to the rear of the development to ensure they are used as garages, the
installation of cycle storage facilities and the introduction of further design features such as the
sandstone coursing on front elevation. The application also addresses the concerns raised by Panel
Members during the previous application in regards to the building line on Mayfield Road and bin
storage in relation to the restaurant.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development
Plan and of the Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy. It is considered that the proposed development
is acceptable in principle and would not give rise to an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent
residents or an unsatisfactory level of traffic generation. It is considered that the proposed
development is of a quality that would positively contribute to the street scene and the vitality of
Walkden Town Centre and therefore it is recommended that the application be approved subject to
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D03Y
3. The restaurant hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 10.00 and 22.00
Sundays to Thursdays and shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 10.00 and 23.00
62
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
Fridays and Saturdays.
4. Fumes, vapours and odours shall be extracted and ducted from the premises in such a manner
as to prevent nuisance to the occupiers of neighbouring properties, in accordance with a scheme
to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the use
hereby permitted commences. Such a scheme, when approved, shall be implemented prior to
the use being commenced.
5. The separating floor between the ground floor commercial use and the first floor residential use
shall have a weighted Standardised Level Difference, DnTw + CTr of at least 55db. Prior to
occupation of a residential apartments on the first floor of the building, the airborne sound
insulation properties of this floor shall be tested in full accordance with British Standard BS EN
ISO 140-4:1998 and a single figure rating of the airbourne sound insulation performance,
DnTW + CTr shall be derived from these measurements in accordance with the British
Standard BS EN ISO 717-1:1997
6. No development shall be started until full details of acoustic glazing to the windows of all
living rooms and bedrooms of the proposed development have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall thereafter be implemented
concurrently with the building works to ensure that no dwelling is occupied until such time as
the appropriate acoustic glazing has been carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority.
7. The roof terrace shall not be used for any other purpose than to provide access for inspection
and maintenance of the building, associated plant and equipment.
8. Prior to first occupation of the residential development hereby permitted not less than 6 car
parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the site in accordance with the
submitted plans and such spaces shall be made available at all times for the parking of future
residents associated with the development hereby approved.
9. No external lighting shall be installed until full details have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall therefore be implemented as
approved.
10. A scheme for the provision of recycling facilities 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 and shall be maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
11. No development shall be started until details of disabled access to the restaurant have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
12. Prior to development of the site the developer shall submit to the Local Planning Authority
(LPA) for written approval an assessment of road traffic noise likely to affect the application
63
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
site. The assessment methodology to be used, including measurement positions, shall be agreed
with the LPA prior to the commencement of noise measurements.
Assessment of noise shall be made is accordance with PPG24 Planning and Noise and BS4142;
1997. The assessment shall provide details of noise attenuation measures to ensure that the
following standards are attained with respect to residential accommodation on the site;
1. internal noise levels not in excess of 30dB LAeq, (16hour) within bedrooms between 23.00
hours and 07.00 hours
2. internal noise level not in excess of 40dB LAeq, (16hour) within living areas between 07.00
and 23.00 hours
3. individual noise events not in excess of 45dB LAmax in bedrooms between 07.00 and 23.00
hours
4. external noise levels not in excess of 55dB LAeq, (16hour) in gardens, balconies and provate
communal gardens between 07.00 and 23.00 hours
The use of ventilation measures which obviate the need for future residents to open windows to
achieve cooling shall be identified and incorporated into the noise assessment report.
Prior to the occupation of the site a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local
Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall be validate that all works
undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
13. The fume extraction system serving the cooking or/ and food preparation areas shall be
designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to neighbouring premises and shall
be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development taking place.
The approved system shall be installed and shall be used at all times when the premises are
used for cooking or preparing foods. The system shall be maintained and serviced in
accordance with manufacturers recommendations.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
3. Standard Reason R005B
4. Standard Reason R005B
5. Standard Reason R024B
6. Standard Reason R024B
7. Standard Reason R024B
64
PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
6th September 2007
8. Standard Reason R024B
9. Standard Reason R004B
10. In accordance with policy EN22 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
11. In accordance with Policy DES2 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
12. Standard Reason R024B
13. Standard Reason R024B
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th September 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54916/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Connections Partnership
LOCATION:
Alleyway Rear Of 2-20 Sussex Close, 1-21 And 2-12
Cumberland Avenue, 1-7 Essex Place 1-16 Durham Close
Clifton Swinton M27 8HQ
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.2m high gates to alleyway
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the erection of alley gates at three locations at the ends of the
alleyway which runs to the rear of 2-20 Sussex Close, 1-21 and 2-12 Cumberland Avenue, 1-7
Essex Place and 1-16 Durham Close, Swinton.
The area is predominantly residential with some open recreation space in the vicinity. There is a
single alleyway to the rear of these terraced houses and it is proposed that the gates will help to
provide added security for the residents and their property.
The gates and fencing will be constructed of galvanised steel and will be fixed to 2m high posts
at either side. The gates are proposed to be painted black with gold finials. Access to the area is
to be by way of a key issued to individual residents. No general access will exist.
CONSULTATIONS
The Open Spaces Society
No Response
Ramblers Association
No Objections
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society
No Response
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association No Response
Head of Engineering and Highways
Responded stating utility easements
are required
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on the 5th July 2007
A site notice was posted on the 5th July 2007
REPRESENTATIONS
The following neighbours were notified of the development:
4-20 Sussex Close (evens)
1-7 Essex Place (both odd and even)
1-12, 15, 17, 19 and 21 Cumberland Avenue
1-7, 9-12 and 14-16 Durham Close
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th September 2007
I have received one objection to the proposal. The following issues was raised:
1. That people will break the fences around the gates to get access to the alleyway.
2. The alleygates will force undesirable people into neighbouring alleyways.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
DC18 - Alleygating
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the gates are in keeping with
the character of the area and suitable for the location they are in, whether the gates would have
any significant impact upon visual or residential amenity and whether the gates would provide a
satisfactory level of security for nearby residents.
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all development
proposals should respect the context of the area within which they are set and should not have a
negative impact upon the existing conditions in the locality. I consider that the design of the
gates is acceptable and that they would respect the context of the area within which they are set.
Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that Development will not be
permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime, anti social behaviour and the fear of crime,
and support personal and property security.
Policy DC18 of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’ states that
alley gates should be designed so as to make scaling them difficult and that they should allow
natural surveillance across the site to reduce the number of concealed spaces in which criminal
activity could occur.
I consider that the design of the gates is acceptable and that they would respect the context of
the area within which they are set. I am of the opinion that the colour of the gates is acceptable
and would not unduly detract from the character of the street scene or the existing visual
amenity of the area. I therefore consider that the development would be in accordance with
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
It is considered that the proposed development would help to protect the private space of
immediate residents from intruders and also remove an area, which is currently attractive to
those wishing to commit criminal activity as it is concealed and provides hiding spaces. I
consider that the proposed alley gates would help to discourage crime in the area and would
help to secure the properties of nearby residents thus reducing the fear of crime. I therefore
consider that the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy DES10 of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th September 2007
The gates are designed so that they do not have any horizontal elements and therefore scaling
them would be difficult. They are also of a railing design and therefore it is still possible to view
the area which is being sealed off.
Policy DC18 also requires that crime prevention measures do not compromise good design and
should not have a fortress like appearance. I do not consider that the design of the gates and
fencing is unacceptable nor would they have a hostile appearance. For these reasons I consider
that the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy DC18 of the Adopted
Unitary Development Plan.
In response to the objection received, I consider that the proposal has been designed in
accordance with DC18 of the SPD. The proposed gates are designed without any horizontal
elements making scaling them difficult and the gates would be of a solid construction. I do not
consider that people would damage the existing 2 metre high timber and brick fences bordering
the proposed alleygates to gain access to the alley. I consider that the proposed alleygates will
discourage crime in this locality by removing areas currently attractive to those wishing to
commit criminal activity by removing areas that are currently concealed and provide hiding
spaces. The proposal may force undesirable people into neighbouring alleyways as a result of
the proposed alleygates, however I consider that the proposal would discourage crime in this
locality.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the gates are acceptable in terms of design and would not look out of
place in the local area. I consider that the gates would help to protect personal and property
security and would reduce the occurrence of crime and the fear of it by local residents. I am
therefore of the opinion that the gates are acceptable and would be in accordance with all of the
relevant policies within the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and subsequently recommend
that the application is approved subject to conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. The gates and railings shall be painted in the approved colour (black with gold finials)
within 3 months of their erection, and maintained in such a condition thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th September 2007
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This grant of planning permission does not authorise the closure or diversion of the public
right of way as indicated on the approved plan, until the appropriate order has been made.
2. The Engineering Division (Drainage) advises that prior to the installation of the alley gates,
utility easements may be required.
APPLICATION No:
07/54963/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Connections Partnership
LOCATION:
Alleyway To Rear Of 2-22 Alresford Road, 34-36 Acresfield
Road, 1-25 Duffield Road And 26-36 Penelope Road Salford
M6 7RF
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.2m high gates to alleyway
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the erection of alley gates at four locations at the ends of the alleyway
which runs to the rear of properties on 2-22 Alresford Road, 34-36 Acresfield Road, 1-25
Duffield Road and 26-36 Penelope Road, Salford.
The area is predominantly residential in character. It is proposed that the gates will help to
provide added security for the residents and their property.
The gates and fencing will be constructed of galvanised steel and will be fixed to 2m high posts
at either side. The gates are proposed to be painted black with gold finials. Access to the area is
to be by way of a key issued to individual residents. No general access will exist.
CONSULTATIONS
The Open Spaces Society – No response
Ramblers Association Manchester Area - No Objections
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No Response
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No Response
Head of Engineering and Highways – No Objections
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on the 19th July 2007
A site notice was posted on the 5th July 2007
REPRESENTATIONS
The following neighbours were notified of the development:
2-22 Alresford Road (evens)
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th September 2007
34-36 Acresfield Road (evens)
1-25 Duffield Road (odds)
26-36 Penelope Road (evens)
I have received one letter of objection to the proposal. The following issues have been raised:
Creation of noise
Requirement for gates in this locality
Maintenance of alleyways
Gates will not prevent burglary
Opposed to gates being attached to property
Positioned directly adjacent to front door
Unsightly and of poor fabrication
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
DC18 - Alleygating
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the gates are in keeping with
the character of the area, ether the gates would have any significant impact upon visual or
residential amenity and whether the gates would provide a satisfactory level of security for
nearby residents.
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that all development
proposals should respect the context of the area within which they are set and should not have a
negative impact upon the existing conditions in the locality. I consider that the design of the
gates is acceptable and that they would respect the context of the area within which they are set.
Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that Development will not be
permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime, anti social behaviour and the fear of crime,
and support personal and property security.
Policy DC18 of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’ states that
alley gates should be designed so as to make scaling them difficult and that they should allow
natural surveillance across the site to reduce the number of concealed spaces in which criminal
activity could occur.
Policy DC18 also requires that crime prevention measures do not compromise good design and
should not have a fortress like appearance
I consider that the design of the gates is acceptable and that they would respect the context of
the area within which they are set. I am of the opinion that the colour of the gates is acceptable
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th September 2007
and would not unduly detract from the character of the street scene or the existing visual
amenity of the area. I therefore consider that the development would be in accordance with
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
It is considered that the proposed development would help to protect the private space of
immediate residents from intruders and also remove an area, which is currently attractive to
those wishing to commit criminal activity as it is concealed and provides hiding spaces. I
consider that the proposed alley gates would help to discourage crime in the area and would
help to secure the properties of nearby residents thus reducing the fear of crime. I therefore
consider that the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy DES10 of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
The gates are designed so that they do not have any horizontal elements and therefore scaling
them would be difficult. They are also of a railing design and therefore it is still possible to view
the area which is being sealed off.
With regard to objections received, I do not consider that the proposal would generate any noise
nuisance although some disturbance may occur when they are erected. Following a closure
order, the residents would become responsible for the maintenance of alleyways. The gates
would be positioned at the entrance to the alleyway adjacent to the objectors dwelling and
would be free standing structures.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the gates are acceptable in terms of design and would not look out of
place in the local area. I consider that the gates would help to protect personal and property
security and would reduce the occurrence of crime and the fear of it by local residents. I am
therefore of the opinion that the gates are acceptable and would be in accordance with all of the
relevant policies within the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and subsequently recommend
that the application is approved subject to conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. The gates and railings shall be painted in the approved colour (black with gold finials)
within 3 months of their erection, and maintained in such a condition thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
Note(s) for Applicant
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th September 2007
1. This grant of planning permission does not authorise the closure or diversion of the public
right of way as indicated on the approved plan, until the appropriate order has been made.
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th September 2007
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th September 2007
74