APPLICATION No:
07/54018/FUL
APPLICANT:
BS Construction Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By New Bridge Street, River Irwell And
Greengate Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Erection of mixed use development comprising two towers (47
and 31 storeys), a 9 storey and an 11 storey block to include 403
apartments, a 230-bedroom hotel and 8019sq.m of restaurant,
offices, retail and ancillary public areas incorporating a spa,
pool, creche, gym and observation deck
WARD:
Ordsall
INTRODUCTION
This application is for one of the most significant developments within the City’s boundaries. The
application site lies within the Exchange Greengate development framework 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 that was approved by Panel in June 2007. 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
Partnerships and Salford City Council and private sector funding from developers through Section
106 contributions.
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 in 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. Planning permission for this public
realm was approved in June 2007 under planning application 06/53597/FUL.
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. Subject to agreement on
different models, 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, through increases in new council tax and
business rates, 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 funding would be
reimbursed from subsequent Section 106 contributions.
The application represents one of the remaining significant development sites in the area that is
bounded by Trinity Way, the River Irwell, Chapel Street and Blackfriars Road.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
The Greengate area marks the origins of the city of Salford and dates back to the 10th century. This
earliest period in Salford’s history saw Salford as the focus of south east Lancashire, it was the
royal manor of Salford, also known as Salfordshire. As a village on the banks of the river Irwell
Salford enjoyed the status of a free borough from 1230 and held a royal warrant to hold both a
weekly market and an annual fair. Indeed, it is likely that part of the site of that 13th century market
lies within the red line boundary of this application. It was this royal charter that defined the
governance of Salford until the late 18th century and which gave rise to the unique separation of the
two cities of Salford and Manchester. Today, that former market, that dates back almost 800 years,
is marked on the ground by current City Council ownership boundaries.
2
The historic core of Salford was formed by the confluence of three principal streets Chapel Street,
Greengate and Gravel Lane. This core was built up away from the banks of the river with arable
land and private gardens occupying the river flood plain. The river played an essential role in the
Salford’s earliest industry, being a focus for fishing, eel farming, along with dyeing, fulling and
bleaching related to the cotton, silk and wool trade.
It was the growth in weaving and the cotton industry that increasingly fuelled Manchester’s growth
relative to Salford. Manchester expanded south and westwards away from the medieval heart and
by the 1720s the author Daniel Defoe described Manchester as “the greatest mere village”. Defoe
also referred to the River Irwell and to “a very firm, but ancient stone bridge over the Irwell which
is built exceeding high“. The expansion of Manchester did not immediately impact upon Salford
and the diversity of industrial uses around the Greengate area continued with brewing, printing,
rope making, etc supplementing the textile trade.
The Industrial Revolution and the arrival of the railways did though have a far greater impact upon
Salford and the Greengate area. The demand for high density housing for the new factory labour
force created a massive westward residential expansion focussed along the Chapel Street corridor
creating what was described at the time as ‘the perfect slum’. Engels described Salford as:
“A town of eighty thousand inhabitants which, properly speaking, is one large
working-mans’ quarter, penetrated by a single wide avenue (Chapel Street)…
it is an old and unwholesome, dirty and ruinous locality… The narrower side lanes of
Chapel Street, Greengate and Gravel Lane have certainly never been
cleaned since
they were built…”
The opening of Salford Cathedral, the library and of Peel Park which occurred around 1850
emphasised the shift of the centre of Salford progressively westwards and the Greengate area
remained a residential and light industrial area through to the Second World War. By this time two
thirds of Salford’s population lived in the Greengate area but by the 1930’s the area was in a state of
decline and declared a slum area. Following the Second World War extensive clearance was
carried out and the area was redeveloped as an area for large scale industry and manufacturing. The
remains of this period of development are still to be seen on site.
However, following the gradual decline of these areas, by the 1970s and 1980s the area became
occupied by a mixture of generally low grade employment uses and long stay surface commuter
parking.
In recent years the Greengate area has increasingly been dominated by surface commuter car
parking.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application site is bounded by the river Irwell to the north; a car park to the east beyond which
is the railway viaduct; Gorton Street to the south-east; Greengate and a car park owned by Euro Car
Parks to the south; and, to the west, New Bridge Street beyond which is more surface car parking.
The site is 0.49 hectare in size and is currently vacant having previously been used for many years
as a surface car park.
3
A number of recent developments are in close proximity to the site. These include:
· the Tempus apartment scheme on the Manchester bank of the Irwell, approximately 35m
from the proposed development. A 19 storey tower that also includes the conversion of the
listed former post office building on Mirabel Street;
· the Abito apartment building, 256 one bed apartments located at the junction of Greengate
and Gravel Lane, approximately 50m from the proposed development; and
· the Spectrum apartment scheme on Blackfriars Road, a 15 storey development comprising
578 apartments and 2,300sq.m of retail and office floorspace, located over 100m from the
proposed development.
As referred to above, planning permission was also granted in June 2007 for a major new area of
public realm that lies directly to the south-east of the application site and that also includes a portion
of the application site at the junction of Greengate and New Bridge Street (06/53597/FUL).
Permission was also granted in outline for a major commercial and residential scheme on the
railway viaduct. The commercial part of that scheme, located between Greengate and Salford
Bridge (that links Chapel Street to Victoria Street in Manchester), is sixteen storeys high and would
be located between this current application site and the Cathedral Conservation Area and the Grade
I listed Chethams and Manchester Cathedral (06/53596/OUT). To the north west of this site, but
also within Greengate, permission was also granted in outline for mixed use development rising to
22 storeys (06/53595/OUT).
The application is for a mixed use scheme comprising four linked buildings. The schedule of
buildings is as follows:
· tower A: a 47 storey tower located adjacent to the end of Gorton Street. The tower
comprises 247 apartments and an observation deck on the top floor.
· Tower B: a 31 storey tower that fronts a new market square and is located adjacent to New
Bridge street. The tower comprises 156 apartments and has a spa on the top floor;
· Riverside block: an eleven storey block located to the rear of the site fronting the river
Irwell. The block comprises 86 hotel bedrooms.
· Hotel block: a nine storey block fronting the new market square with other elevations
adjacent to Gorton street and Greengate. The block comprises 144 hotel bedrooms and
various ancillary uses.
In total the development will provide 403 new apartments; a 230 bed hotel and ancillary uses
including pool, gym, spa, café, function rooms; a restaurant; offices and retail floorspace.
There would be four levels of basement car parking across the site that would be accessed from
Gorton Street. The scheme would provide a total of 341 car parking spaces, 22 of which will be
disabled spaces. The basement would also accommodate 150 bicycle spaces and 100 secure
lockers.
The breakdown of the apartment accommodation would be as follows:
· studios – 36 – 8.9%
· one bed – 183 – 45.4%
· two bed – 147 – 36.5%
· three bed – 37 – 9.2%
The primary vehicular access to the site is from Gorton Street. In terms of pedestrian access this
will be via Gorton Street, the new market square and a boardwalk fronting the river Irwell. In
4
addition there would be internal access running through the centre of the site that will provide
access to all of the buildings and would function as a foyer connecting all the uses.
The site is not located within a conservation area but the site does lie within approximately 130m of
the boundary of the Cathedral Conservation Area, which is situated on the other side of the railway
viaduct. There are a number of listed buildings close to the site. These are:
· the bridge parapets and viaduct retaining walls of the Manchester Liverpool Railway
(Grade II);
· the former post office building on Mirabel Street in Manchester that forms part of the
Tempus apartment scheme;
· Collier Street baths (Grade II*) and the Eagle public house (Grade II);
· the former police station on Chapel Street (Grade II);
· Manchester Cathedral and Chetham’s School of Music (both Grade I) that are located in
the Cathedral Conservation Area; and
· Sacred Trinity Church (Grade II*)
The detailed design and appearance of the development has been the subject of considerable
discussion, evolution and refinement that has taken place over a number of years and a number of
different schemes and that has included the City Council’s architecture advisors on development
with the Exchange Greengate area, Feilden Clegg Bradley.
The appearance of the buildings has been informed by the best post-war architecture combined with
the requirement to make the buildings uniquely appropriate for and responsive to their location
within the regional centre. The scheme is designed as a family of buildings within one coherent
architectural vision. The two towers would be of the same design and treatment and their structure
is based on the use of super columns, which form a strong frame for the towers, at the four corners
of each building. These are clad in high quality reconstituted stone and oriented to form a pinwheel
configuration. Visually this makes possible a distinctive asymmetric form to the tower elevations.
Contrasting with these solid elements would be a predominantly glazed elevation to the apartments
on which would be layered metal panels fixed in a geometric pattern. This treatment of the towers
significantly improves the way that they are seen from long distances. This strong treatment of a
glazed elevation set within a strong frame and tempered and enlivened by metal brise soleil, that
provide essential shading to the predominantly glazed elevations, is applied to each of the lower
buildings that face the river and the proposed new Greengate Square.
At ground floor level the development is separated from the railway viaduct by Gorton Street and a
small area of land owned by Network Rail. A riverside terrace and walkway is provided to the
Irwell and a small portion of this would be cantilevered out over the river. This serves to enhance
the attractiveness of the active uses that front this space and also serves to provide space at the base
of the taller tower appropriate for its height. It is not intended that this riverside terrace and
walkway connects through to the Network rail land though as there is no likelihood of a riverside
path ever going under the railway viaduct. Instead pedestrian movement is directed though the new
public realm that was approved by the Panel recently under application 06/53597/FUL. The
internal space has now been fully enclosed and the proposal reinstates the medieval market place on
the corner of Greengate and New Bridge Street.
SITE HISTORY
5
00/41272/OUT. Outline planning permission for a 30 storey development comprising 280
dwellings, a 720 bed hotel, 3010sq.m of retail floorspace, 2850sq.m of offices and ancillary leisure
uses granted in November 2001.
04/48300/OUT. Renewal of the above application was granted in September 2004.
04/49521/REM. Reserved matters application for the siting, design, access and external
appearance of three towers of 17, 25 and 30 storeys comprising 280 dwellings, a 720 bed hotel,
3010sq.m of retail floorspace, 2850sq.m of offices and ancillary leisure uses submitted in
November 2004. No decision has been made on this application to date.
05/49922/FUL. Application for the erection of a 62 storey mixed use tower comprising 510
apartments and a 272 bed hotel; a ten storey building comprising 276 apartments, 1800sq.m of
retail floorspace, 1800sq.m of office floorspace and six levels of underground car parking
submitted in January 2005. This application was withdrawn.
05/50729/OUT. Outline application for the erection of mixed use development comprising a 30
storey tower with a 252 room hotel, a 32 storey tower with 234 apartments, a 10 storey perimeter
building with 245 apartments, 1600sq.m of retail floorspace, 1380sq.m of office floorspace and 666
car parking spaces at 6 basement levels submitted in May 2005. No decision has been made on this
application to date.
07/55399/OUT. Application for the renewal of outline permission 00/48300/OUT was submitted
in August 2007. No decision has yet been made on this application.
CONSULTATIONS
Manchester City Council – No comments to date
English Heritage – “This is a significant application that forms part of the planned regeneration of
the centre of Salford, which we strongly support. However, in view of the height of the proposed
development it will have far reaching consequences for the integration of the built environment
across the river Irwell uniting the historic environments of Salford and Manchester. English
Heritage are therefore concerned that the height of the proposed development may have a
detrimental impact on key views, both close and distant, of the grade I listed Manchester Cathedral,
the setting of other important grade I and II* listed buildings, and views into the cathedral
Conservation Area. We have therefore requested additional information from the applicant. The
submission of this has assisted our consideration of this important application.”
“Our principle concern in seeking this additional information has been largely to judge the impact
of the proposed buildings on the setting of Manchester Cathedral and Chetham’s school – the
remaining heart of medieval Manchester that the wider proposals for this part of Salford seek to
re-align themselves with. We have also been concerned with the principle of exceeding the
suggested masterplan heights.”
“We are now satisfied that although this development will have a significant effect on the setting of
these important Grade I listed buildings this will not be adverse and we are therefore content to
6
leave determination of this case to the local planning authority and withdraw our previous concern
over the impact on the setting of the Cathedral and Chetham’s and wish the project well.”
Director of Environmental Services/Greater Manchester Geological Unit
“The application includes a contaminated land report, however this details initial assessments and
does not fully quantify or identify the potential risks on site. The report does identify that there are
some elevated levels of contaminants in the ground on site. It is recommended that a condition be
attached with regard to contamination.”
“The application includes elements that will be involved in the cooking of food for hotel and
restaurant purposes. As the site will also be used for residential use in close proximity, it is
recommended that an odour abatement plant or odour extraction system should be incorporated in
to the building design. I have recommended a condition to this effect.”
“The site will incorporate a number of fixed plant and machinery including air handling plant and
lift motors. It is important that this equipment will not affect the amenity of future occupiers nor
surrounding residential uses through poor design or loud equipment. I have therefore
recommended that the application should be subject to a noise limit for fixed plant and equipment.”
“The acoustic report submitted with the application details preferred noise levels within the
proposed development. These are in line with recommendations from BS8233:1999. The report
further identifies building methods and specifications to achieve acceptable internal standards.
These requirements will need to be carried through to the build and should be required through
condition either separately or as a general condition indicating compliance with the submitted
acoustic report.”
“The site is within the declared air quality management scheme for Nitrogen Dioxide. The size and
scale of the application site also exceeds our thresholds requiring an air quality assessment to be
carried out. I note from the application details that a Combined Heat & Power unit is proposed
within the development. The CHP plant will also require special consideration on the impacts on
the surrounding area and the development itself. I have therefore recommended a condition
relating to an air quality assessment being required.”
“For a development of this scale, a Construction Environmental Management Plan may be
appropriate.”
United Utilities – No objections.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company
“Fit with the URC Business plan and Vision and Regeneration Framework
The proposal is within the Exchange, Greengate area of Central Salford. This 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.”
“Link to Central Salford Priority Projects
The Exchange, Greengate is a priority site for new investment in Central Salford and will create an
important connection to the regional centre and along the Irwell City Park. Planning Guidance has
been approved by the City Council to establish the Exchange as a dynamic new part of the regional
7
centre as proposed in the plans of both Salford and Manchester City Council’s. 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 and through the Irwell City Park. The area will contribute to
the growth of the regional centre’s office development. The application fits well with these
strategic objectives. The application relates well to the proposed Greengate Square in respect of its
massing and design, providing a strong edge, with an active ground floor hotel use, to the eastern
boundary of the Square.”
“Proposed Uses
The proposed uses are acceptable and consistent with the URCs vision for the Exchange. With
respect to the residential mix, the URC considers that it is important that this reflects the provisions
in the City Council’s Housing Planning Guidance in order to achieve a diverse and quality living
environment in the heart of the City centre. The scheme has a total of 403 apartments. In terms of
size all the two and three bed units are over 57sq.m (45.7%). Ten of the one bed units are just under
57sq.m. This mix and size does not exactly meet the requirements of the Guidance. The higher
proportion of smaller apartments will need to be justified, particularly in respect to the overall
balanced mix and future adaptability to changing needs. The hotel and commercial/retail parts of
the scheme are seen as important elements of the land use mix for this area.”
“Design
There have been a series of meetings over the past few months to review the refine the proposals for
layout, scale and access. The URC has been involved in these discussions and supports the
revisions that have been made to the original scheme. Specifically:
i)
the proposed heights, position and design (including materials) of the two residential
towers and commercial blocks have been amended to provide a better relationship both
within the scheme and in the context of adjoining sites and an improved appearance
including skyline;
ii)
in particular, the proposed ground floor hotel frontage along Greengate will provide
important life and activity to the Greengate square;
iii)
the scheme will provide a significant new public space – the market square with its new
market cross;
iv)
the core pedestrian/cycle route of the Irwell City Park does not follow the riverside
alongside this scheme – therefore the likely public use of the proposed walkway within
the scheme has to be carefully thought through particularly as, at its south-east end,
there is no obvious space or connection back to Greengate Square. It may well be that
this walkway is for access only until such time as the use of the Network Rail owned
car park adjoining the site is resolved when there may be a reason for the public to use
it;
v)
the access and serving arrangements have now been satisfactorily resolved with the car
park access and hotel servicing from Gorton Street;
vi)
it will be important to ensure that the external design quality of the scheme, in
particular the use of high quality finishes, is strongly controlled after planning
permission is granted. For this reason, the URC considers that there needs to be a
planning condition about providing a schedule of drawings of exterior design details
and related materials prior to commencement of development and a clause within the
S106 Agreement to retain ARCA as the scheme architects.”
8
“Conclusions
This application has been the subject of long negotiation with the City Council and Central Salford
URC. Although originally an outline application, it has now been changed to a full application. A
number of amendments have been made to address massing, height, design, access and other
planning issues. The URC now supports the application, which accords closely with the URC’s
vision for the Exchange area. The issue of the level of the S106 contributions from this proposal to
support the provision of the primary public realm in Greengate is currently the subject of discussion
between the URC, the City Council and the applicant. Agreement on these issues needs to be
reached before the application is reported to Planning Panel.”
I would point out that agreement has now been reached on the S106 contribution.
Environment Agency – Objected to the submitted plans. Following the submission of further
information the Agency maintains its objection to the scheme on the following grounds
1. “Cantilever structure – the cantilevered walkway is still shown over the river Irwell as in
the previous consultation drawings. The layout of the proposed development is
unacceptable as there are proposed cantilevered structures over the river Irwell. Such
structures can impede the ability to carry out future maintenance or improvement works
and are unlikely to obtain the approval of the Environment Agency under our own
legislative powers.”
“Revised plans should be submitted that show the cantilevered walkway has been omitted
from the design.”
2. “Proposed levels – there is no information submitted with the current application regarding
the proposed levels of the development in relation to flood risk. Although levels have been
shown on previous submissions it is not clear what the current proposals are in terms of
ensuring flood risk is minimised.”
“The applicant should provide plans detailing the proposed site levels to ordnance datum.”
3. “Encroachment – the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the water
environment by reason of excessive built encroachment by new tall buildings, providing
little opportunity to create valued, open riverside access corridor; and by a new projecting
platform over the river Irwell. The design seems to have taken little consideration of the
river and how it should have been linked within the new riparian development.”
“The Environment Agency has already expressed its concerns to the architects at
pre-application stage, but little has been revised or amended based on the meeting.
Although we indicated that 5 metres may have been acceptable, this was on the basis that
the proposals show a well integrated design with the river Irwell.”
“As stated in policy DES6 waterside development should protect wildlife habitats and it
should create a positive addition to the waterside, providing an attractive elevation. Policy
EN5 states that development alongside river corridors should not be permitted where it
reduces access or impacts on the river valley. The recent draft Salford City Council
Supplementary Planning Document: Design, titled ‘Shaping Salford’ states that
9
development should be of scale height and massing appropriate to the width of the
waterway and its surrounding context.”
“There is significant opportunity to enhance the existing poorly integrated river corridor
that in the past has suffered from poor riparian development and design.”
“Initial designs show there is presently limited public greenspace with the majority of the
site dominated by hard landscaping and pavement. It is recommended that designs
incorporate larger and more connected greenspace along the river, thereby enhancing the
landscape and biodiversity value. Tall buildings should be set back from the river to
provide an open character to the front. Should such features be incorporated into the
design, the Environment Agency may consider this sufficient justification for the provision
of a 5m easement in this case.”
“The applicant should submit a revised layout plan that considers the above principles.”
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – “Thanks the applicant for his voluntary support of
the archaeological excavations in advance of ground works and for taking a personal interest in the
processes involved. All on site archaeological investigations have been completed. The corner of
the site formerly part of the market place and owned by Salford City Council was found by trial
trenching to contain no surviving remains of archaeological interest. There are no archaeological
implications for extending the car park into this area; however, it will be important for the levels to
be restored in keeping with the rest of the former market place.”
“Oxford Archaeology North have produced an interim report on the archaeological investigations,
which describes the main results and the range of finds. The most significant aspect of the finds is
the substantial assemblage of early post-medieval pottery that came from a thick deposit of garden
soil (16th to 18th centuries and numbering over 8000 shards) and which is of regional importance.
Further work is needed to complete the archaeological analysis and disseminate the results.”
“The new development proposals provide for more open space including opening up a route from
the market place to the corner of the development site overlooking the river. This open space will
make a welcome addition to the public realm and give good views across the river; GMAU feel
there is an opportunity here to provide information on the history and archaeology of the site and of
buildings seen across the river.”
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Do not object to the application in
principle but wish to ensure that the scheme is appropriately designed to minimise the impact or
risk of crime. “This area of Salford has an unacceptable level of crime. The open and permeable
square within the centre of the complex is a crime generator. In many cases uncontrolled
environments offer the ingredients to encourage anti-social behaviour, noise and nuisance and
unless appropriate consideration is given to limit this behaviour, problems will ensue.”
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment – CABE have fundamental concerns
about this project, and sense that overall, too much accommodation is being proposed. “This
crucial site, located at the threshold between the cities of Salford and Manchester, deserves better.
As you are aware we reviewed previous proposals for the site and our views were set out in letters
dated 22 march 2005 and 1 August 2005. These letters expressed our disquiet with the quantum of
10
development that was being proposed, and in both CABE explicitly noted that we are not
convinced that the site is appropriate for a tall building. Unfortunately, despite the aspirations of
the design team, the present scheme does not convince us that progress has been made. Our third
review reinforces our worries. We have yet to see a scheme that responds well to the challenges of
a site that will redefine successfully both Salford and Manchester.”
“Outline application
We have an in principle objection to an outline application for a proposal including tall buildings.
The joint CABE/English Heritage ‘Guidance on Tall Buildings’ states that outline applications are
not appropriate for tall buildings and we fail to see that there is any justification in this case. It
seems perverse to take this route rather than a detailed one, and think this should be unacceptable to
the planning authority. We consider that quality is not safeguarded unless details are scrutinised
and agreed at this stage in a full application. Our concerns are reinforced by the client’s reported
view that the outline approach has been adopted due to the reduced cost of an outline application.
In our view a committed and serious client for such a building type would endeavour to resource
and approach such an application in the proper way.”
“Quantum of development
Our core concern is that this proposal will create poor quality external spaces and cramped
accommodation due to the amount that is being put on the site. The design team have located the
buildings as far away from each other as possible, but they still feel too close. There is a tightness
in the relationships between the buildings that gives them little room to breathe and we are left
wondering why so much development is required. Is it a question of viability? We find this hard to
believe given the location of the site. We are left unconvinced that this is a realistic proposal.
Unusually for such a scheme we were not able to discuss these matters with the client as they did
not attend the design panel meeting.”
“We expressed concern in our previous letters that a convincing case had not been made for towers,
of the scale proposed, in this location. The proposal further confirms our view. That is not to say
that a tower of different proportions could not work here, but given the efforts thus far we are of the
view that two towers are not acceptable. We could find no logic or justification for the location and
scale of the two towers and consider that more work must be done to achieve a high quality design
that does not overwhelm its context.”
“Public Realm
The impact of the quantum of development at the ground floor level greatly concerns us. A
successful development on this site requires a public realm that functions well, that is animated and
is well used, that is safe and delightful, and one that you can move through easily. The public realm
must also be considered within the context of the wider public realm strategy. We are concerned
that this has not been achieved, because of the scale of development. Essentially, the scheme
cannot work if this fundamental element is not right.”
“Context
We struggle to see how this proposal will work in its context and in particular at its edges. Clearly
this is a challenging site. It demands a good relationship with the water front and the urban square
and the links between them. Unfortunately this has not been established. The design team has the
benefit of a masterplan for the area by Feilden Clegg Bradley, but it is essential that it responds to it.
At the moment this is not in evidence.”
11
“Conclusions
We remain unconvinced that the scheme is appropriate for this location and we therefore cannot
support this planning application. We are aware there is an extant permission for the site that
permitted a high quantum of development on the site. In the light of PPS1 and the recognition that
achieving high quality architecture is a primary objective of the planning system, we think that the
local authority should look at this site afresh and refuse permission for this application. The extant
permission is no basis to relax the requirements for a high quality development.”
“We would like to see a better scheme in the future that would give Salford the quality that it
deserves.”
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified of the application and the amended plans:
All apartments in the Abito building, Greengate
All apartments the Tempus Tower and Sorting Office, Mirabel Street
Chethams School of Music
Ask Property Developments
Nick Kohli
Euro Car Parks
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 16 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
Objections have principally been received from residents and owners of property in the Tempus
buildings across the river in Manchester. I have also though received an objection from Chetham’s
and the owners of the Tempus building and objections have also been received from occupiers of
the Abito development. The following issues have been raised: Chetham’s would object to construction noise before 7.00am and after 7.00pm.
 Grade I listed buildings should not be affected or overlooked by the proposal.
 There should be no overlooking of the yard where students have P.E. lessons.
 The height of the towers would rob the evolving area of important vistas into the
city.
 The design and external appearance of the development is unsightly, weak and of
poor quality.
 The design and access statement is unclear and littered with ill-explained,
ambiguous statements about architecture and design that serve only to confuse.
 The recently approved Exchange Greengate Planning Guidance seeks to restrict
building heights to three or four storeys adjacent to historic buildings – the former
post office (part of the Tempus development) is adjacent to the application site.
 The proposal fails to understand and respect its historic setting.
 The tower is not of an appropriate scale or massing.
12











Concerns were expressed about the overall amount of development and height in
the planning officers report on application 04/48300/OUT for the renewal of the
outline permission that was for a 30 storey tower.
The proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Housing Planning guidance that
states that small dwellings should not predominate – there are more than 50% one
bed apartments and studios in the scheme.
The proposal is contrary to the Housing Planning Guidance in that there is no
affordable housing element within the scheme.
There are already too many apartments and the market is already saturated.
The development will overshadow and overlook balconies on the tempus building
removing any privacy.
The principal of a very tall tower on this site was not envisaged under the original
masterplan for the area.
Euro Car Parks object on the grounds of the proposed removal of car parking on
their land that is not being replaced in the area – there is a deficiency of car parking
provided by this development and a multi-storey car park must be provided.
This would lead to problems of public safety and security and possible terrorist
attack
There is no consideration of the effect on local amenities, public transport, roads,
car parking and traffic congestion.
The pool, gym and other facilities should be open to all residents in the Greengate
area.
Loss of view.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY.
SD1 – The North west Metropolitan Area
DP1 – Economy in the Use of land and Buildings
DP3 - Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific: MX1 – Development in Mixed-Use Areas
Other policies: ST2 Housing Supply, ST6 Major Trip Generating Development, ST7 Mixed Use
Development, ST12 Development Density, DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and
Movement, DES3 Design of Public Space, DES4 Relationship of Development to Public Space,
DES5 Tall Buildings, DES6 Waterside Development, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours,
DES9 Landscaping, DES10 Design and Crime, H1 Supply of Housing, H2 Managing the Supply of
Housing, H4 Affordable Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing
Development, MX2 – Chapel Street frontage, A1 Transport assessments and Travel Plans, A2
Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled, A8 Impact of the Development on the Highway Network,
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, DEV5 Planning
Conditions and Obligations, DEV6 Incremental Development, EN16 Contaminated Land, EN17
Pollution Control, EN18 Protection of Water Resources, EN22 Resource Conservation, CH5
Archaeology and Ancient Monuments.
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
13
DP1
–
L4
MCR2 -
Regional Development Principles
Regional Housing Provision
Regional Centre and Inner Areas of 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.
The Development Framework that was approved by the City Council in 2005. The Framework’s
overall vision for the Exchange, Greengate is of 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.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
This is a full application for what would be, if approved, the tallest building in Salford. The main
planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of this form of 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 on important listed buildings and the
Cathedral Conservation Area, 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
14
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.
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 that 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.
In addition an extant outline planning permission exists for a thirty storey development comprising
280 dwellings, a 720 bed hotel, 3010sq.m of retail floorspace, 2850sq.m of offices and ancillary
leisure uses (04/48300/OUT). I therefore consider the principle of development in this location is
both acceptable and desirable.
The proposal includes a mix of residential, hotel and retail uses and active ground floor uses are
found throughout the scheme. I am satisfied that this application provides significant proportions
of both commercial and residential floorspace that will assist, along with other approved
development, in securing the development of this natural extension to the regional centre in a
sustainable and appropriate manner. I consider that this proposed mix of uses is acceptable and in
accordance with policies MX1 and EG2. I have attached a condition that ensures that the hotel
element of the scheme operates as a hotel and not as small apartments.
Design - Height, Scale and Massing
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
15
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 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 public
space 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 site 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.
It is important to also bear in mind the Guidance on Tall Buildings issued by CABE and English
Heritage. This states that “in the right place, tall buildings can make positive contributions to city
life. They can be excellent works of architecture in their own right; some of the best post-war
examples are now listed buildings. Individually, or in groups, they affect the image and identity of
a city as a whole. In the right place they can serve as beacons of regeneration, and stimulate further
investment.”
16
The Guidance goes on to state that “adequate guarantees are essential to maintain the original
architectural quality and ensure that inferior details and materials are not substituted at a later date.”
The proposals have been prepared following a detailed site analysis including an assessment of the
impact on the listed Chethams School of Music and Manchester Cathedral together with other
surrounding buildings such as the Travel Inn on Victoria Street. I consider that the disposition of
building heights on the site would be acceptable with regard to both surrounding existing buildings
and within the site. The smaller tower would be a natural progression of the heights that are being
established by both the Exchange Greengate Planning Guidance and approvals that have already
been made by the Panel. At 31 storeys this building would be three storeys higher than the
proposed building on the adjacent site on the opposite size of New Bridge Street, which in turn
would be three storeys higher than the building on the neighbouring site to the north-west. The
tallest building would be significantly higher than adjacent buildings. The approved Exchange
Greengate Planning Guidance has indicated that on this site a taller building of 40 storeys would be
appropriate. This would be fifteen storeys higher that the other tower on the site according to the
Planning Guidance. The proposal is for a difference in the number of storeys of sixteen (the
difference between 47 and 31 storeys). I consider therefore that the differences in the proportions
of the tower are in accordance with the Guidance. In terms of height the taller tower is just seven
storeys higher than envisaged by the Guidance
I consider therefore that both towers are of an appropriate scale within this city centre location and
should be assessed with regard to other proposals within the Greengate area that are currently under
determination.
The scheme accords with the policies contained in the Exchange Planning Guidance and the
principles of the Development Framework, which require taller buildings to be located around the
perimeter of the Greengate area. The proposed ground floor active frontages and pedestrian
entrances around the site would provide important life and activity to the new public realm.
Design – Elevations, Appearance and Materials
The elevational treatment of this development, how it appears and its proposed materials has, quite
appropriately, been subject to the most rigorous examination. The architects have been required to
improve the development in consultation with officers and the City Council’s architecture advisors
in a collaborative way and the result is a scheme of the very highest quality. A family of buildings
has been created that are related in the use of bold forms and articulated asymmetrical façade detail.
The scale of the elements of the facades are intended to be read at varying distances with the detail
being revealed the closer one gets to the buildings. This is very deliberately not another glass box
and I am satisfied that the architecture will be an innovative, distinctive addition to the city’s
skyline.
In accordance with the CABE advice outlined in the section above I have attached a condition
approving materials at this stage and am recommending that the S106 include a provision that the
current architects continue to progress the development.
Housing Mix
17
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 areas
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 proposes a total of 45.7% two and three bed apartments all of which would be over
57sq.m in floor area. In addition there are ten one-bed apartments that are 56.4sq.m in area, very
close to the 57sq.m threshold. The number of three bedroom apartments provided by the scheme
represents more than 10% of the total. I am therefore of the opinion that the mix and size of
apartments is acceptable.
Affordable Housing
Policy H4 requires that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet
local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the City Council, to provide
affordable housing of appropriate types.
Policy HOU3 of the Housing Planning Guidance requires that on all residential sites over 1
hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings, or in housing developments of 25 or more
dwellings, 20% of the dwellings should be in the form of affordable dwellings. The policy also goes
on to state that a lower proportion of affordable housing, or a lower commuted sum, may be
permitted where material considerations indicate that this would be appropriate. Such
circumstances could include where there are low house prices in the immediate area compared to
average incomes, where there are exceptional costs associated with the development, where the
financial impact of the provision of affordable housing, combined with other planning obligations
as set out in the Planning Obligations Planning Guidance would affect scheme viability or where
the scheme was substantially developed before the adoption of the Guidance.
Policy HOU4 of the Housing Planning Guidance provides advice on the types of affordable
housing and policy HOU5 states that affordable housing provided on site should be integrated into
the rest of the development with visual differences between tenures being minimised as far as
practicable.
There is a citywide need for affordable housing of 600 units per annum according to an affordable
needs assessment undertaken for the City Council. This need has arisen due to a number of factors
that include the rise of house prices when compared to incomes, the increase in those on the
housing register, the right to buy scheme and the decrease in the amount of vacant local authority
and registered social landlord stock.
18
In coming to a decision on whether affordable housing is required on this site I am mindful of a
number of factors. Most significant of these is that discussions regarding the development of the
Exchange Greengate area have been ongoing with the City Council for a number of years and that
pre application discussions have been ongoing with this applicant who purchased the site years
before the Housing Planning Guidance was adopted in December 2006. Arguably it was the
submission of the outline application 00/41272/OUT in 2000 and its subsequent approval in
November 2001 that acted as a catalyst in the revitalisation of the Exchange Greengate area. In
addition the Exchange Greengate area contains a significant amount of public realm and highway
works that have to be funded in part by the private developers of sites within the area and a decision
has been taken at corporate level that in this particular part of the City all funding should be directed
towards the successful procurement of this important public realm. Finally, this approach has been
taken on other applications within the Exchange Greengate Planning Guidance area that have
already been considered and approved by the Panel (06/53595/OUT and 06/53596/OUT). I
therefore consider that the lack of affordable housing is acceptable in this instance in accordance
with policy HOU3.
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 nearest residential properties are found on the Manchester bank of the Irwell in the Tempus
development that includes a 19 storey tower set back from the river and the conversion of the
former post office on Mirabel Street. The closest properties would be in the converted post office.
These would be approximately 37m from the eleven storey riverside block and the 47 storey tower.
Bearing in mind that an outline permission for a 30 storey development was approved on this site
prior to the Tempus development being approved; that the buildings on this site are set back from
the river bank by approximately 5m; that this is a city centre location and that it is the narrow
elevation (18m wide) of the tower that faces the Tempus development I am satisfied that
appropriate privacy and overlooking distances would be achieved between the proposed
development and these surrounding residential buildings.
I do not therefore consider that there will be any significant loss of privacy or an unacceptable
outlook suffered by residents surrounding the site. I do not consider that the height of the building
is such that it would prove overdominant when viewed from any neighbouring property given the
distances and circumstances described above.
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.
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
19
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 main vehicular access to the development is located on Gorton Street via Greengate. This
could be approached from New Bridge Street and Trinity Way to the north and from Greengate and
Chapel Street to the south. Access would also be provided from the proposed new junction on
Trinity Way that is being required to service all developments within the Exchange Greengate area
and which was approved under application 06/53595/OUT. Drop off facilities for the hotel would
be provided on Greengate
There are 341 parking spaces provided as well as 150 bicycle spaces and 100 secure lockers and
these parking levels are in accordance with policy in this highly accessible location. I consider the
parking levels proposed to be acceptable and would consider a greater level of provision to be
contrary to good practice, government advice and planning policy. In terms of highway safety I
have no objections to the submitted scheme.
Impact on Listed Buildings and the Cathedral Conservation Area
Strategic policy ST15 states that historic and cultural assets that contribute to the character of the
city will be preserved and, wherever possible and appropriate, enhanced.
Policy CH2 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have an
unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.
Policy CH3 states that development in conservation areas will only be allowed where it would
preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. In determining this,
regard will be had to the extent to which the proposal; retains or improves features that contribute
to the character or appearance of the conservation area; is of a high standard of design; secures
environmental improvements and enhancements; and protects and improves important views
within, into and out of the conservation area.
The key Government guidance relating to development affecting Conservation Areas and listed
buildings is contained within PPG15 ‘Planning and the Built Environment’. This guidance
acknowledges that changes will and must occur, and that those changes may be necessary for the
effective protection of the historic environment and to meet the prevalent social and economic
conditions. PPG15 promotes a positive attitude towards change, but is also cautious and demands
full details of impacts and reasoning.
With regard to Conservation Areas the Guidance points out that special attention must be paid to
the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area and
20
goes on to state that the desirability of preserving or enhancing the area should also be a material
consideration in the planning authority’s handling of development proposals that are outside the
conservation area but would affect its setting, or views into or out of the area.
The site does not lie with a conservation area and there are no listed buildings occupying the site.
However the site does lie within approximately 130m of the boundary of the Cathedral
Conservation Area, which is situated on the other side of the railway viaduct. The proposed
development is also located in close proximity to a series of listed buildings. These include:
· the viaducts of the Manchester:Liverpool Railway (grade II)
· the former post office building on Mirabel Street that forms part of the Tempus
development (grade II)
· the former baths (grade II*) and the Eagle public house (grade II) on Collier Street
· the former police station on Chapel Street (grade II)
· Manchester Cathedral and Chetham’s School on Victoria Street within the Cathedral
Conservation Area (both Grade I) and
· The Church of the Sacred Trinity (Grade II*)
In order to assess the potential impact of the proposed scheme on the Cathedral Conservation Area
and adjacent listed buildings it is important to understand the current relationship between the
application site and the setting of the Conservation Area and the future relationship following the
redevelopment of the Exchange Greengate as set out in the approved Exchange Greengate planning
Guidance.
The proposed development would be approximately 200m from Chetham’s and 250m from the
Cathedral but the existing built form located between the site and the Cathedral Conservation Area
creates a significant physical separation. The Cathedral and Chetham’s overlook the broad width
of the busy Victoria Street, which carries substantial movements of traffic through the
Conservation Area (although Manchester City Council have ambitions to calm Victoria Street). On
crossing Victoria Street, the main through route is separated from the deep cut of the River Irwell
by the curvature of flanking bridge abutments and retaining walls. Cathedral Approach, located
opposite the Cathedral’s entrance, is accessed from Victoria Street and crosses the river. The
Approach ascends to an area located above the viaduct, which is occupied by an expanse of surface
car parking and extends beyond Salford Approach. Immediately adjacent to the car parking is the
disused Exchange station – currently occupied by various Network rail portable buildings – and
beyond this, the railway lines that run between Victoria and Salford Central stations.
This situation described above though is likely to change and the Panel have approved not only the
Exchange Greengate Planning Guidance but also a scheme submitted by ASK Developments and
Network Rail that involves the redevelopment of land above the railway viaduct that fronts Chapel
Street and Greengate and which comprises residential, hotel, office and retail uses. This approved
scheme provides for buildings of eight to sixteen storeys in height (six to fourteen above podium)
that would lie directly between the site under consideration here and the Grade I listed buildings.
Therefore, whilst the application site is within relatively close proximity to the Cathedral
Conservation Area and the two grade I listed buildings, the existing and proposed built form acts to
separate the sites. In terms of the existing built form, this not only acts as a visual barrier but also a
psychological barrier. For example, the height and scale of the existing viaduct acts as a significant
visual barrier whilst the physical separation between the application site and the Conservation area
21
– created by Victoria Street, the River Irwell and the topography of the land – gives the impression
that the application site is located within a completely different area of the regional centre and not
within a short stroll of the heart of the core of the city centre.
Similarly, the existing built form and the approved Ask Developments and Network Rail scheme
on land above the viaduct ensures that this development has minimal impact upon the other listed
buildings south of the viaduct, the former police station, the Sacred Trinity Church and the listed
viaduct structures. Likewise, the Abito scheme and the development approved under Ask
Developments scheme 06/53595/OUT ensures that the proposed development will have limited
impact on the setting of the former baths and the Eagle public house on Collier Street.
The only other listed building near the proposed development is the former post office on the
Manchester bank of the river Irwell directly opposite this site. With regard to this building the
proposal, at a distance of over 35m, is unlikely to have any more impact on its setting than the 19
storey tower that was built immediately adjacent to the listed building as part of the Tempus
scheme. Furthermore it is not considered that the 47 and 31 storey towers have any significantly
greater impact than the 30 storey development that already has planning permission.
Sustainability
Policy EN22 states that development proposals for more than 100 dwellings or more than
5,000sq.m of floorspace will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that:
a) the impact on the conservation of non-renewable resources, and on the local and global
environments, has been minimised as far as practicable; and
b) full consideration has been given to the use of realistic renewable energy options, and such
measures have been incorporated into the development where practicable.
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’ (with a minimum rating of
‘very good’ and that if an ‘excellent’ rating cannot be achieved then the City Council will require
an explanation as to why not.
The applicant has stated the following with regard to sustainable construction:the development is on a brownfield site
buildings will be designed for modular construction
all units are fully accessible to all
durable materials are proposed
low energy lighting will be used throughout
occupants will be provided with information regarding reducing energy requirements
the level of parking is 60% for the residential units
buildings will be designed to allow for prefabricated cladding construction to minimise
construction waste
prefabricated bathroom pods will be used throughout
all units will have acoustic party walls to minimise sound transmission
22
natural surveillance is promoted throughout
there will be 24 hour concierge and manned site management office and have been
designed for modular construction
Ground water heating and under floor heating which means no gas and up to 20% of
the energy consumed by traditional electric heated apartments
combined heat and power unit
automatic flush control devices
The applicant states that the development will achieve a Code for Sustainable Homes ‘three star’ or
‘four‘ rating (Code for Sustainable Homes has replaced EcoHomes). As it is the City Council’s
policy to seek a ’four’ rating I have attached a condition in accordance with the above policy. I
consider that the condition is sufficient to ensure that City Council policy is adhered to.
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 usefully points
out that planning obligations should satisfy 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;
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 permission must not be bought or sold.
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 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 - 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.
I consider that the Greengate area is one 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. The Ask developments generated a
contribution that included an additional 50% on top of the figures quoted in the SPD. The applicant
in this case has agreed to a similar degree of funding of the important public realm that represents
23
the full sums quoted in the SPD plus an additional 50%. This would represent a total payment of
£1,922,151 plus an administrative payment of £48,053 (Some of this 50% would be spent on
providing the public realm that forms part of this application in the form of the market place that
also formed part of the public realm application that was approved by the Panel in June
(06/53597/FUL).
I am satisfied therefore that in addition to the sums set out in the Supplementary Planning Guidance
the applicant in this instance is contributing significant monies towards public open space within
the Exchange Greengate area that represent a 50% increase on top of the figures set out in the SPD.
This 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.
The proposed Heads of Terms for the S106 Agreement are set out towards the end of the report.
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 has expressed a number of
concerns. These have been significantly addressed by enclosing the space within the centre of the
development that significantly enhances the degree of security provided within the development.
In addition I have attached a condition to ensure that the future development meets ‘Secured by
Design’ standards.
Objections
a) Grade I listed buildings should not be affected or overlooked; failure to understand and respect
the historic setting
“
The application has been subject to the closest scrutiny by English Heritage and the applicant has
been required to satisfy both officers and English Heritage so submit additional information to
enable a proper judgement to be made on what effect the development would have on a number of
listed buildings that include those of most significance to Manchester city centre. I am mindful
therefore of the recently received comments of English Heritage. That
although this
development will have a significant effect on the setting of these important Grade I listed buildings
24
”
this will not be adverse and we are therefore content to leave determination of this case to the local
planning authority and withdraw our previous concern over the impact on the setting of the
Cathedral and Chetham’s and wish the project well.
I consider that any expectation that Manchester Cathedral and Chetham’s will not be affected or
overlooked at all is unrealistic given the location of these buildings within the heart of the regional
centre. I am content though that there is no unacceptable impact on, or failure to respect, the setting
of these listed buildings.
b) Too much car parking given the location so close to the regional centre.
National guidance on parking levels now stipulates maximum parking standards. The level of
parking falls well below those maximum standards and I am satisfied that there is neither too much
car parking, nor too little, provided by this development.
c) Overlooking of the yard where students have P.E. lessons.
The proposed development would be a considerable distance from Chetham’s School and I do not
consider that the height of the buildings should be limited to take account of this concern of the
School.
d) The height of the towers would rob the evolving area of important views into the city; loss of
view.
The effect on views into and out of the Cathedral Conservation Area has been analysed above. The
strategic location of towers as established by the Exchange Greengate Planning Guidance indicates
that a tower of 40 storeys would be appropriate on this site. In addition 30 storey development has
been approved long before any of those residents who have objected to this scheme moved into the
area. Instead of robbing the evolving area of views I consider that the proposal would add to the
prestige of the area by the construction of towers of grace and elegance and the highest design
quality.
e) Chetham’s objection to construction noise before 7.00am and after 7.00pm.
There will inevitably be a degree of noise and disturbance in any development but I have attached a
considerate contractors condition that should ensure that such noise and disturbance is minimised
and that there would be no significant construction noise outside of the hours specified by
Chetham’s School.
f) Too many apartments are being built and there are serious concerns about the long term
sustainability of such a large amount of apartment development given such high vacancy rates in
other developments.
The approved 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. The Guidance identifies the Ordsall Lane corridor as offering the opportunity
25
to provide a broader mix. This approach is consistent with government guidance in PPS3 and
PPG13, as well as with UDP policies ST12 and H1, which highlight that the mix and density of
dwellings will be controlled having regard to the location and accessibility of the site, and its
proximity to jobs and facilities.
Given this policy background I am satisfied that the Exchange Greengate is an area where 100%
apartment provision is appropriate. The applicant has stated that the development will be phased
over a number of years. The first apartments within the area, the Abito apartments, are being
occupied now and soon the Dandara development on Blackfriars Road which is being developed in
two phases, will begin to be occupied. I am confident that this occupation of the area will continue
at a steady pace for many years to the benefit of the area as a whole. There will always be a certain
level of vacancy in any apartment development and I consider that the best way for the local
planning authority to tackle this issue is by making sure that the apartments are appropriately sized
in accordance with the Housing Planning Guidance and to only approve those developments that
reach the necessarily high quality of design that will make them places that people want to live.
g) Design and external appearance is unsightly, weak and of poor quality.
This point is addressed above but I would reiterate that the design and external appearance of this
development has been subject of the most extensive pre application discussions as well as further
improvements required during the application process. I am fully satisfied and very confident that
the design and external appearance presented to the Panel are of the very highest quality, as is
appropriate for a development of this importance. I would add that the proposed development has
been commended by the Manchester Society of Architects.
h) Objection from Euro car parks.
This objection relates principally to the loss of parking that results from the creation of significant
public realm in the heart of the Exchange Greengate area and that was addressed under those
applications referred to above that have already been approved by the Panel.
Car parking has been investigated as an option both under the square and on sites as multi-storey
within the overall development framework site and are currently being re-evaluated. The level of
car parking within the scheme is sufficient and it should be noted that the Exchange Development
Framework and Planning Guidance guide development of the area, including that on ECP land,
which ECP have been consulted on. It is not the role of the planning process to protect private
interests.
i) The design and access statement is unclear and littered with ill-explained, ambiguous statements
about architecture and design that serve only to confuse.
The design and access statement specifically is not a part of the application itself. It is a common
occurrence that such a statement will include references to schemes and developments elsewhere. I
do not agree though that the design and access statement is unclear or that it is confusing.
j) The Exchange Greengate Planning Guidance seeks to restrict building heights to three or four
storeys adjacent to historic buildings (Collier Street baths and Eagle public house) - the former post
office is adjacent to the application site.
26
It is correct that directly adjacent to the Eagle public house the Guidance properly restricted the
heights of buildings that sat directly adjacent to this listed building, unlike the relationship that
exists between the four storey former post office and the 19 storey Tempus tower that sits directly
adjacent to that building. However, the Guidance considered that a tower on the opposite side of
Collier Street to the baths could appropriately be up to 20 storeys in height. After closer
consideration of this height and the heights of other taller buildings considered to be appropriate
within the Exchange Greengate area it was felt that a building of 20 storeys was not appropriate
across the road from the Collier Street baths. The height of this tower was considered under
application 05/53595/OUT and it was felt that fifteen storeys, with the building set back from the
Collier Street road frontage was a more appropriate height given the proximity of the listed
building. I consider that the same careful thought has been given to the relationship exists between
this proposed development and the former post office. There is a distance of more than 35m
between the two developments, far greater than exists between the baths and the closest tall
building, and it is considered that the relationship is acceptable. There is no application of double
standards as is implied by this particular objection.
k) The tower is not of an appropriate scale or massing.
This issue has been addressed above
l) It is correct that concerns were expressed about the overall amount of development and height in
a previous report on an application to renew the original outline planning application. However, I
would point out that the overall amount of development is significantly less than that approved
under the outline permission that is extant on this site. The outline permission would have resulted
in a height and massing that was too great and one of the main reasons why the current proposal is
considered acceptable is that the amount of development has been reduced and the towers are slim
elegant structures.
m) That the proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Housing Planning Guidance in that small
apartments predominate.
This point has been addressed above.
n) The proposal is contrary to the Housing Planning Guidance in that there is no affordable housing
element within the scheme.
This point has been addressed above.
o) That the buildings will overshadow and overlook balconies on the Tempus building removing
privacy.
The proposed development is over 35m from the Tempus development and I therefore consider that
there would be no significant loss of privacy.
p) That the principal of a very tall tower on this site was not envisaged under the original master
plan for the area.
27
It is proper that the original master plan for the area should have taken account of the fact that an
extant permission for a thirty storey development existed on this site.
q) This development would lead to problems of public safety and security and possible terrorist
attack.
r) There is no consideration of the effect on local amenities, public transport, roads, car parking and
traffic congestion.
There are no local amenities and there is no public transport as currently the area is used for surface
car parking. The proposed development assists in the regeneration of the area that will be guided
by the Exchange Greengate Planning Guidance. In adopting planning guidance for the area
consideration has been given to local amenities, public transport, roads, car parking and traffic
movement
l) Objection from Environment Agency
In response to the objection from the Environment Agency the architects have made the following
comments:
a) the cantilevered walkway
the cantilevered walkway will be built above a new concrete wall rising from below water level. As
such the requirements for maintenance and improvement works in the foreseeable future should be
minimal. Furthermore, the Environment Agency have already pointed out that under riparian
rights, the owner of the land adjoining the river, in this case the applicant, is responsible for the
maintenance of the river bank or wall. During the next stages of design the developer and their
team will need to consider the detailed design of the walkway and the wall to ensure that both can
be safely maintained. Also the proposed walkway is positioned at a comparable level to the
adjacent Waterloo Bridge and is approximately 2.5m above the estimated 1 in 100 year flood level
in the river. As such it would not impact on the flow of the river.
b) levels
levels have been supplied to the Environment Agency that show that the scheme complies with
necessary floor levels.
c) encroachment
The proposals for the site have been developed in accordance with the Exchange Greengate
Planning Guidance. Specifically the proposed height, scale and position of the buildings has been
developed in line with plan 10.5 of the Guidance; routes through the site and along the river have
been developed in line with plan 10.7 of the Guidance; and landscaping has been developed in line
with plan 10.9 of the Guidance. As such the comments of the Environment Agency regarding the
height and position of the tall buildings and the landscaping are not relevant to this application and
their reasons for not supporting a 5m easement adjacent to the river are not justified.
With regard to the Environment Agency criticisms of how the proposed development complies
with City of Salford policy it is considered that these criticisms are unfounded particular with direct
reference to the draft Design Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Shaping Salford’ for the
following reasons:
the proposed buildings are in line with the master plan for the area and are therefore deemed to
be of a scale height and massing appropriate to the width of the waterway and to its surrounding
context, as set out in the draft Guidance.
28
The elevation facing the river accommodates a restaurant, café and a principal entrance to
tower A. The external space adjacent to these uses is enhanced by the cantilevered walkway
thereby helping to encourage activity on or over the water where appropriate, as set out in the
draft Guidance.
The riverside hotel, tower A and their ground floor uses have been specifically positioned to
maximise views of the waterway and allow public access both to and along the waterway with
pedestrian routes located along the water’s edge, as set out in the draft Guidance.
Maintenance and fire vehicles will occasionally use the access adjacent to the river but access
to the car park and service area are located off Gorton Street so that vehicular and service routes
and car parking are located away from the water’s edge, as set out in the draft Guidance.
The significant new public realm, Greengate Square, part of which is within the application
boundary, will mitigate the development’s impact on the landscape and bio-diversity value of
the waterway and its setting, as set out in the draft Guidance.
The design of the riverside hotel and tower A will provide adequate surveillance of public
routes through the location of windows and entrances, as set out in the draft Guidance.
Taking the above into account and bearing in mind that the necessary levels information has been
submitted to the Agency that shows that finished floor levels of this development are above those of
the Ask/Network rail development that the Agency originally objected to but subsequently
withdrew their objection from, I am satisfied that the substantive objections of the Environment
Agency have been satisfied.
m) Objection from CABE
CABE have objected to this application on a number of grounds. A principal objection has been to
this applications former status as an outline application. This matter was addressed during the
application process and the application is now a full application. When CABE reviewed the
development framework, the precursor to the Planning Guidance, they said that the document was
exemplary. It was as a result of these favourable comments that Feilden Clegg Bradley were
appointed as architectural advisors to the City Council on developments within the Exchange
Greengate Area. The application has been considered with respect to detailed planning guidance in
the form of the Exchange Planning Guidance and Exchange Greengate Development Framework.
The scheme accords with policies and principles contained in both documents. The applicant has
carried out further assessment of the impact on listed buildings and has amended the scheme to
improve its relationship with listed buildings and within the site.
PROPOSED HEADS OF TERMS
1.
The architects of this scheme, Arca, shall be retained as scheme architects who shall
take the scheme through future construction stages to completion of the development.
2.
The developer will pay the financial contribution of £1,922,151 plus £48,053 admin
fee in accordance with the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance.
This shall contribute towards public realm, the new junction on Trinity Way and
improvements to public transport within the Exchange Greengate area.
3.
As a partial alternative to the contribution in point 2 the developer shall provide the
public realm described in application 06/53597/FUL. This shall only occur provided
29
that the value of such works are an equivalent cost that would otherwise have been
payable under point 2.
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 to a value of
£1,922,151 plus £48,053 admin fee. This would largely contribute to the provision of public realm,
public transport improvements and highway improvements within the Exchange Greengate area.
As well as this considerable improvements to the application have been made during the
pre-application and application consideration processes.
I consider that these represent considerable added value to the benefit of the City Council.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of this form of 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 on Listed Buildings, the impact of the
development on neighbours and whether there is sufficient car parking.
The proposals represent an effective use of a previously-developed site within the Regional Centre.
The application would assist in securing the redevelopment of what is currently an under-used and
generally unattractive site in a highly prominent location within the Exchange Greengate area. A
broad mix of uses would be proposed within the site and it is envisaged that this development
would assist with others in stimulating the redevelopment of other areas within the Exchange
Greengate area for similar uses. The mix of uses proposed are consistent with UDP policies MX1,
S2, ST11, RSS policies EC8, DP1 and UR1 and the Exchange Greengate Planning Guidance. Such
a mix would create a diverse and sustainable development, which would be appropriate given the
site’s location within the Regional Centre. The information submitted with the application
demonstrates that the design of the development would be of the highest quality, with significant
investment in public realm, open space and infrastructure. The likely impacts of the proposal on
listed buildings, 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 development.
In accordance with policy HOU3 there is no affordable housing within the development but a
significant financial contribution towards major public open space elsewhere in the Exchange
Greengate area will be made. I am of the opinion that the amount of investment involved in such
works compensates for the fact that there is no affordable housing within the development.
The architects for the scheme have worked successfully to revise and improve the scheme and I am
satisfied that the proposed development is of the highest architectural quality and will serve as an
appropriate landmark building. I am satisfied that the proposed development accords with the
policies of the development plan and the Exchange Greengate Planning Guidance.
30
RECOMMENDATION:
That Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below once the
Section 106 Agreement has been signed:
i.
that the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be authorised to enter into
legal agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and
Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to secure Arca as the architects for the development
and to secure the payment of a contribution to the implementation of improved local open
space/play equipment, improvement to public open space, infrastructure, heritage, public
transport, highway improvements, construction training and sustainability.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. 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 ground contamination and
ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors
as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks
to human health and the wider environment; and
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 incorportaed by
the developer during the coures of construction, prior to occupation of the development; and
iii) A Verification Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written
approval. The Validation Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site were
completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
3. Details of the fume extraction system or odour abatement plant serving the cooking or/and food
preparation areas shall be designed such that there will be no odour or noise nuisance to local
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.
4. The rating level (LAeq,T) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the development,
when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90,T) by more
31
than -5dB at any time when measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises.
measurements and assessments shall be carried out according to BS4142; 1997.
Noise
5. Habitable rooms facing or having a view to New Bridge Street, River Irwell/Dual Carriageway,
Gorton Street and Greengate shall be glazed to have sound insulation not less than the
following levels:
Bedrooms
Rw - 36dB
RTra - 29dB
Lounges
Rw - 33dB
RTra - 26dB
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. Acoustically attenuated trickle vents providing sound insulation of at least 40 dBn,e,w shall be
fitted to all habitable windows either facing or having a view to New Bridge Street, River
Irwell/Dual Carriageway, Gorton Street and Greengate.
7. The applicant shall ensure that all wall and floor specifications detailed in the acoustic report
named "AEC STONE MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING LLP - NOISE ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL/HOTEL DEVELOPMENT, GREENGATE SALFORD
REFERENCED P1602-R1/AJT, DATED 16 MARCH 2007" shall be achieved within the
design and build process. Specifications within the following paragraphs shall be achieved
throughout the building :
Para 6.17 Maximum Noise Levels - Commercial Space
Para 6.19 Floor Construction between commercial/residential areas
Para 6.24 Basement area ceiling specification
Additional consideration shall be given to the following paragraphs of the report depending the
proposed final uses:
Para 6.18 Noisy uses, additional specification
Para 6.20 Glazing and doors
Para 6.21 Uprated Glazing and doors
Para 6.22 External Café Areas
8. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit for the approval of the
Local Planning Authority an air quality assessment for the development to assess the existing
and future air quality for years 2010, 2020 and opening year with and without the development,
for nitrogen dioxide and particles less than 10 microns. [The Design Manual and Road Bridges
(DMRB) will be acceptable for this study.] The assessment should identify the worst case
exposure, changes in pollution concentration to residents of the proposed development and
identify any changes in pollution levels predicted to residents of the proposed development and
shall assess the impact of the proposed CHP plant on the proposed and surrounding residential
properties. The predicted levels should be compared with the Air Quality Objectives set in the
Air Quality Regulations 2000 (Amendment) Regulations 2002. Such mitigating measures
relevant to the application shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved report
prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
9. The applicant shall, with regard to television reception in the area containing the application
site, provide the City Council as local planning authority with studies that:
a) Identify, before each phase of the development commences, the potential impact area in
which television reception is likely to be adversely affected by that phase of the development.
32
The study shall be carried out either by the Office of Communications (Ofcom), or by a body
approved by Ofcom and shall include an assessment of when in the construction process an
impact on television reception might occur.
b) Measure the existing television signal reception within the potential impact area identified in
(a) above before development commences. The work shall be undertaken either by an aerial
installer registered with the Confederation of Aerial Industries or by a body approved by the
Office of Communications, and shall include an assessment of the survey results obtained.
c) Assess the impact of the development on television signal reception within the potential
impact area identified in (a) above within one month of the practical completion of the
development or before the development is first occupied, whichever is the sooner, and at any
other time during the construction of the development if requested in writing by the City
Council as local planning authority in response to identified television signal reception
problems within the potential impact area. The study shall identify such measures necessary to
maintain at least the pre-existing level and quality of signal reception identified in the survey
carried out in (b) above. The measures identified must be carried out either before the building
is first occupied or within one month of the study being submitted to the City Council as local
planning authority, whichever is the earlier.
10. The applicant shall submit for written approval a dust management plan which will specify all
measures and precautions necessary to prevent the emission of dust from the site affecting
nearby sensitive premises. This scheme shall detail measures for both the demolition stage of
the development as well as the construction stage of the development. Once agreed, all
identified dust mitigation measures shall be implemented and maintained thereafter until the
completion of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
11. The development hereby approved shall achieve a post-construction Eco-Homes/Building
Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) rating, or equivalent,
of 'very good' or 'excellent', unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
A post-construction review certificate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority before any of the buildings hereby approved are first occupied, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
12. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation to
provision of permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials and delivery and
collection of equipment, provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's
vehicles, wheelwashing facilities, street sweeping for each phase of development and no
development or activities related or incidental thereto shall take place in contravention of such
site operating statement.
13. A scheme for the provision of recycling facilities for each phase of development shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme
shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any dwelling in that phase and shall be
maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
33
14. No development shall be commenced unless and until a lighting scheme for the phase of
development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The approved scheme shall be implemented and thereafter retained prior to the first occupation
of the development.
15. No development/demolition shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation
of a programme of archaeological work for each phase of development in accordance with a
written scheme of investigation that has been submitted by the applicant and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
16. The development shall not be commenced unless and until a crime prevention plan for that
phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such
scheme shall be capable of being accredited by Greater Manchester Police Architectural
Liaison Unit under the Secured By Design scheme. The approved crime prevention plan shall
be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of any dwelling and retained thereafter
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
17. The applicant will submit a scheme for the interpretation and display of archaeological
remains, in areas of open space within the Exchange Greengate area, commemorating the
history, heritage and archaeology of the site. Such scheme shall be implemented in full in
accordance with the approved details and timetable.
18. The development of each phase shall not be commenced unless and until a scheme for that
phase detailing all the following matters including; sustainable construction techniques;
natural ventilation techniques; suatainable urban drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar
heat gain and use of renewable energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability
matters have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior
to the occupation of any dwelling in that phase the approved scheme shall be installed and shall
thereafter be retained and maintained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
19. The applicant will submit a scheme for the display of industrial archaeological remains, in
areas of open space within the Exchange Greengate area, commemorating the railway heritage
and archaeology of the site. Such scheme shall be implemented in full in accordance with the
approved details and timetable.
20. The hotel accommodation shall not be used as an 'aparthotel' nor shall it be used for any similar
long term apartment accommodation that would not be compatible with its intended function as
hotel rooms.
21. No development shall take place until a scheme for the boundary treatment adjacent to the
River Irwell has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme shall include mechanisms to maximise the wildlife value of the site. Such a
scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001
34
2. Standard Reason R028B
3. Standard Reason R024B
4. Standard Reason R024B
5. Standard Reason R024B
6. Standard Reason R024B
7. Standard Reason R024B
8. Standard Reason R024B
9. Standard Reason R005B
10. Standard Reason R005B
11. In the interests of resource conservation and environmental sustainability. This is in
accordance with Policy ST14 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
12. Standard Reason R005B
13. Standard Reason R024B
14. Standard Reason R004B
15. To secure archaeology interests on the site in accordance with policy CH5 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
16. To ensure the design of the scheme discourages crime in accordance with Policy DES10 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
17. To commemorate the history of the site and provide an educational and community amenity in
accordance with policy CH5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
18. In order to address recycling and sustainability issues in accordance with policy EN22 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
19. To commemorate the history of the site and provide an educational and community amenity in
accordance with policy CH5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
20. It is considered that this additional measure of control is required as without it the
development would be contrary to policy H1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
and contrary to policy HOU2 of the Salford City Council Housing Planning Guidance.
21. To protect/enhance the habitat/amenity value of the river Irwell.
35
Note(s) for Applicant
1. In noise terms, '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. For further discussions
regarding the requirements of the noise condition, the applicant/developer is advised to contact
Urban Vision for advice.
2. The applicant should contact the Commercial Services team for discussions and advice on the
layout, design and procedures undertaken by the proposed use prior to the commencement of
the business. Commercial Services can provide such advice concerning matters relating to the
Food Safety Act and the Health & Safety at Work etc Act. For further advice please contact
0161 737 0551.
3. The proposed uses on site may fall under requirements of the new licensing regime. The
applicant is advised to contact the Licensing Team at the earliest opportunity to clarify what
licences or special conditions may apply under the Licensing Act. Contact the Licensing Team
on 0161 737 0551 for further advice.
4. 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
with an agreed process and within agreed timescales in agreement with the Local Planning
Authority.
APPLICATION No:
07/55370/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr Barry Parker
LOCATION:
County Market Great Cheetham Street East Salford M7 4UJ
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing warehouse and erection of a four storey
building to provide 16 apartments and 3 retail units together
with associated parking
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
The application site is known as County Market, a building that sits within a row of properties
along nos. 296-328 Great Cheetham Street East, Salford. The site is a Neighbourhood Centre and
consequently all ground floor uses are in either retail or other commercial uses. The upper floors of
36
some of the units within the parade accommodate residential uses. The unit immediately adjoining
to the west is in a community use as a church.
The County Market building itself is separated from no. 318 Great Cheetham Street, one of the
adjoining units to the west, by a small access road that leads to a Local Authority car park that
immediately bounds the site to the rear.
Residential dwellings adjoin the site to the north (Rialto Gardens on opposite side of road) and
south (Brutus Walk).
The agent reports that the site has been known as ‘County Market’ since the 1980’s where it
operated as a multi-occupancy retail space. Most recently it is reported that the site has been utilised
as a storage warehouse, although since July of this year the building has stood empty.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
Planning consent is sought for the demolition of the existing County Market building and the
erection a four storey building that will accommodate 16 no. apartments and 3 no. retail units.
The ground floor of the building will accommodate the retail floor space and internal parking area.
The retail units will aspect and be accessed from Great Cheetham Street East itself and will
accommodate a total of approximately 145 square metres of floor space. An entrance on this
frontage is also provided for the residential units to the upper floors. An internal, secure parking
area is proposed at ground floor level to the rear of the site that will accommodate 6 no. car parking
spaces (one of which being for disabled use) and 6 no. cycle spaces. This will be access via the
Local Authority car park and provides a vehicular and alternative pedestrian access into the
residential units are upper floors.
The apartments will be accommodated at first, second, and third floors. The overall mix will
comprise 5 no. one bed apartments, 9 no. two bed apartments, and 2 no. three bed apartments.
A contemporary design is proposed, characterised by 3 no. projecting box elements at first and
second floors. Penthouse apartments are proposed at third floor level. The palette of materials
proposed will include render, glazing, red cedar boarding, concrete and mesh. The scale of the
development is largely in keeping with the surrounding context with the overall building mass not
being materially different to the existing County Market site.
The agent has submitted the following documentation in support of the application
Design and Access Statement
Environmental noise assessment
Desk top contamination study
Transport Statement
SITE HISTORY
37
01/42118/FUL – Alterations to front and rear elevations. Approved 26/4/07
02/44941/COU – Change of use from retail to nursery. Withdrawn
96/35311/COU – Change of use of ground floor only from butchers shop to church/meeting room.
Approved
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 21st September 2007
Individual notification letters have been sent to 61 no. local residents advising of the proposal.
REPRESENTATIONS
No representations have been received.
CONSULTATIONS
Engineering and Highways – No objection in principle.
GM Geological Unit – No objection, in principle, subject to conditions
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections in principle to proposal as
scheme appears to have been designed with security in mind. Some concerns raised with respect to
limited supply of secure car parking in this location due to level of car crime that have been
experienced. Should the application be approved, it is recommended that a condition be attached
requiring the developer to submit, and adhere to the recommendations of an application for Secured
by Design.
United Utilities – No objection, in principle.
MAIN POLICIES TO BE CONSIDERED
NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing
Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control
Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport
Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and noise
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 – Quality in New Development
38
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
ST2
ST8
ST11
ST12
DES1
DES2
DES7
DES9
DES10
DES11
H1
H2
H8
S1
S3
A2
A10
EN16
EN17
DEV5
Housing Supply
Environmental Quality
Location of New Development
Development Density
Respecting Context
Circulation and Movement
Amenity of Users and Neighbours
Landscaping
Design and Crime
Design Statements
Provision of new Housing Development
Managing the Supply of Housing
Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
Retail and Leisure Developments within Town and Neighbourhood Centres
Loss of Shops
Cyclists, Pedestrians, and the Disabled
Provision of Car, Cycle, and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
Contaminated Land
Pollution Control
Planning Conditions and Obligations
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider that the main issues to assess in the determination of this application are: whether the
principle of the proposed development is acceptable; whether the proposed development is of an
appropriate layout, design and scale; whether there would be any impact on the amenity of existing
or future residents in the area; whether there would be sufficient parking; and whether there would
be an appropriate contribution towards the provision of open space. Dealing with each issue in turn
I would comment as follows:
Principle of development
The application site is allocated within the Broughton Village Neighbourhood Centre, as defined
on the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan (UDP). UDP Policy S1 refers to
planning applications for retail and leisure developments within such centres, stating that any such
uses must, amongst other things, be of an appropriate scale to the centre, be accessible by a choice
of means of transport, do not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or adversely
impact on highway safety, be of a good standard of design, and not have an unacceptable impact on
environmental quality or residential amenity. The reasoned justification to the policy states that
neighbourhood centres play a vital role in the health of local communities, providing accessible
39
retail, leisure, and other facilities. In order to protect and enhance centres, and their primary retail
function, retail and leisure development within them will be supported.
UDP Policy S3 states that within a neighbourhood centre a change of use from class A1 retail will
only be permitted where it would not have an unacceptable impact on the vitality or viability of the
centre, either individually or cumulatively. In making such a judgement regard will be had to,
amongst other things, over-congestion of non-A1 uses, the pedestrian activity (or inactivity) within
the centre, result in the loss of a shop front that contributes to the maintenance of the retail
character of the frontage, have an unacceptable impact on environmental quality or residential
amenity, and contribute to the regeneration of the centre, in terms of removing a long-term vacancy
and/or improving the condition of the property.
In this instance I note that A1 retail uses will be provided at ground floor, accommodating some
145 square metres of floor space (gross). The provision retail uses within the row of commercial
uses is to be welcomed, particularly give the appearance and vacant nature of the existing building,
and fully accords with the thrust of UDP Policy S2. Whilst the ground floor use of the building is
acceptable, in principle, I note that historically the building has accommodated more retail floor
space that that currently proposed, albeit in recent years the premises has been used as a warehouse,
and more recently has been vacant since July.
Having assessed the Council’s records it appears that the premises were still in a retail use in
December 2002, at the time that a planning application was submitted (and subsequently
withdrawn) for a change of use from retail to a nursery. There is no record of planning permission
having been granted for the aforementioned warehouse use and this would thus appear to be an
intervening unlawful use.
I note that the total floor space of the existing ground floor of the premises is approximately 481
square metres (gross). In having regard to the level of retail floor space that this would have
provided, albeit (in practical terms) on a historical basis, there is a net loss of gross retail space.
Given that the site has not accommodated retail uses for some time, that the building is vacant and
in a poor state of disrepair, and given the good quality design of the development (that will provide
3 no. new retail units) I am satisfied that the level of retail floor space proposed is acceptable.
Moreover, in addition to introducing new (in a practical sense) retail units, and reinforcing its retail
function, I consider that the development will deliver small-scale visual regenerative benefits for
the centre (albeit on a very small scale) in that a dilapidated vacant building would be replaced with
a development of a high design and visual quality.
In having regard to the above I am satisfied that the requirements of UDP Policies S1 and S2 are
fully satisfied.
UDP Policy ST11 outlines the criteria for the location of new development and sets out a sequential
approach that should be adopted in bringing forward sites for development. This includes, in the
first instance, the re-use of existing buildings and the development of previously developed land in
areas that are well served by a choice of means of transport and are well related to housing,
employment, services and infrastructure
The application site is occupied by a building that is run down and vacant in a parade of commercial
units in an allocated neighbourhood centre. By virtue of this location the site has good transport and
40
community links and represents a sequentially favourable site. I am therefore satisfied that the
principle of the development on the site is acceptable.
Acceptability of type and mix of residential units
UDP Policy H1 states that all new residential developments should contribute towards a balanced
mix of dwellings in the local area. Further to this, policy HOU1 of the Council’s Housing Planning
Guidance (HPG) notes that in West Salford, the large majority of dwellings should be in the form of
family housing rather than apartments, unless an applicant can clearly demonstrate that there are
special circumstances that justify an alternative approach having regard to criteria A to H of UDP
policy H1. The residential element of the scheme proposes 100% apartments and therefore does not
accord with the broad thrust of policy HOU1.
In this particular case I am mindful of the site constraints in terms of its size and location, being
within an established row of units, and of the need to secure commercial uses at ground floor level
given the Neighbourhood Centre allocation of the site. It is on this basis, together with the local
regenerative and high quality design benefits of the scheme (which are detailed later in this report)
that I consider that a 100% apartment scheme is acceptable on this occasion.
HPG Policy HOU2 states that where apartments are proposed, a broad mix of sizes both in terms
of the number of bedrooms and net residential floor space of the apartments should be provided..
Paragraph 4.31 of the reasoned justification to the policy requires the majority of apartments in new
developments to have two or three bedrooms with a floor space of 57 square metres, which is
considered adaptable to changing needs. As originally submitted, it was proposed to accommodate
5 no. one bed units (all of which were 45 square metres in area) and 11 no. two bedroom units
(ranging in size from 58 to 70 square metres in area). Whilst I consider that the number and size of
the one bed units proposed is, on balance, acceptable in being mindful of an overall mix concerns
were initially raised regarding the lack of 3 bed apartments. Following negotiation and subsequent
revisions, 2 no. 3 bed apartments are now proposed. The overall mix proposed is set out below.
Type
1 bed apartment
2 bed apartment
3 bed apartment
Amount
5
9
2
Percentage
31.25%
56.25%
12.5%
I am now satisfied that the development will provide an acceptable mix of dwellings in terms of 1,
2 and 3 bedroom properties, of an appropriate size. I am of the opinion that the proposal therefore
complies with the requirements of policy HOU2.
Design, Scale, and massing
Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS 1) – Delivering Sustainable Development makes it clear that
good design helps create attractive, sustainable, usable and adaptable places and that this is
inherently linked to good planning. Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3), relating specifically to
new housing development, encourages Local Planning Authorities to promote good design in such
development to create attractive, high-quality environments in which people choose to live. UDP
Policy DES 1 reflects this national guidance, re-enforcing the view that all new developments
41
should achieve high standards of design, including urban design that has sustainability as key
objective. It reports 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.
I am mindful that the site occupies a prominent position along this stretch of Great Cheetham Street
East and of the poor state of the existing building, which is in a state of disrepair and is of very little
architectural merit. Its overall mass and width of frontage, together with its windowless elevations,
rendered white (which has itself discoloured over the passage of time) is out of context with and
detrimental to the area.
The proposed development has, in my view, recognised that the site provides an opportunity for a
good quality, impact design on primary route through and beyond the City. A bold design is
proposed, which comprises 3 no. glazed display frontages, each of approximately 6 metres in width
at ground floor. The ground floor is marginally recessed behind the front face of existing properties
within the row. The first and second floors are formed by three projecting cubes, which themselves
are framed by recessed glazing. These floors project out marginally beyond the front fact of the
properties with the parade, allowing a canopy to be formed across the frontage of the retail units
below. The third (top) floor of the building is set back from the first and second floors by
approximately 2.4 metres. It is clad in zinc and in terms of overall height and extent is consistent
with the horizontal emphasis provided by the pitched roofs of other properties along this stretch of
Great Cheetham Street East. This section also accommodates an atrium at roof level, which allows
light to filter into the central internal circulation zones, to the benefit of amenities of future
occupiers.
I am of the opinion that the proposed development, although clearly contemporary in nature, will
generally respect the established rhythm of the street in terms of scale, mass and proportions when
viewed as an overall composition. At street level the ground floor retail units will progressive step
down with the gradient of Great Cheetham Street East itself. The width of each unit has also been
considered such that the horizontal emphasis and proportions of the units sympathetically fit into
the existing street.
At first and second floor levels, the projecting box elements will offer interest to the building on the
approach in each direction along Great Cheetham Street. The boxes again respect an established
rhythm in terms of their height and width.
At the third floor, I consider that the step back of the zinc clad box will ensure that it does not
dominate the street. Terraces at this level will also allow activity at roof level, adding vibrancy to
the area.
Having found the development to be acceptable in terms of the elevation to Great Cheetham Street
East I now turn to the side and rear elevations, which although not as prominent have a public
aspect to which careful regard must be had.
Taking firstly the east elevation of the building that directly fronts onto an access to the public car
park, I welcome the fact that the footprint of the building at ground floor has respected the need for
a constant width of footpath and for this access to feel open at street level. At first floor, the
42
projecting box allows the built form to extent above this access, improving the character and
appearance of the street.
I consider that the rear elevation of the building, which follows the general design principles
adopted on the front elevation, is acceptable and will provide an active elevation of interest which is
currently lacking to the Local Authority car park. Some concerns were initially raised regarding the
treatment of the ground floor of this elevation, which has a considerable width of nearly 21 metres.
This elevation was to be totally closed, with horizontal cladding and a double garage door being
proposed across the elevation. Following negotiation and amendment, the horizontal boarding has
been replaced by open vertical panelling allow views through the to car parking area. I am now of
the opinion that this elevation has been sufficiently broken and is, on balance, acceptable.
The west elevation of the building that fronts onto no. 320 Great Cheetham Street is essentially
blank, with the exception of the ground floor level, which provides views into the car park. This car
park will aspect out onto a common boundary wall. The existing County Market building is of an
almost identical footprint and scale to the building now proposed. In being mindful of this existing
situation, and of the need to secure a blank frontage such as not to prejudice any future development
of this adjoining site, I consider that this elevation is satisfactory.
The plate of materials will include smooth concrete timber, glazing, and zinc at roof level. I have no
objection, in principle, to the material proposed when viewed as part of the wider design, although
I would recommend that a condition be attached to any planning permission which requires that
samples for all elevations are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
prior to the commencement of development.
Crime
UDP 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.
The car park associated with the development, which can accommodate 6 no. cars and 6 no. cycles,
will be entirely secured, with entry being for residents only. Although given the accessible
Neighbourhood Centre location of the site there is no objection on parking grounds to the
development I consider that future residents or visitors will use the adjacent public car park. This
car park is currently the subject to crime and anti-social behaviour. I note that the aspect of the units
to the rear elevation will allow increased natural surveillance of this area, which is in-itself
beneficial. However, I consider that in addition to such surveillance it would also be appropriate to
provide lighting to this area. As detailed below, the applicant has agreed to provide a full commuted
payment as part of the required developer contributions. I would advise that monies for public
realm works that form part of the overall contributions are used towards additional lighting to the
car park area as lighting. This would be in accordance with the SPD Developer contributions
guidance, lighting is encompassed within the definition of public realm works .
Subject to the above I am satisfied that the development accords with DES10. Comments from
Greater Manchester Police concur with this view. GMP also advise that a condition should be
attached to any planning permission which ensures that the development achieved Secured by
Design Standards. Accordingly, I have recommended a condition to this effect.
43
Amenity
UDP Policy DES7 considers that all new development will be required to provide potential users
with a satisfactory level of amenity and ensure that the amenities of existing residents are not
unacceptably compromised.
The main aspect for the proposed apartments is to the north and south, utilising the front and rear
elevations of the building. I am satisfied that such aspects will ensure that the amenities of both
existing residents and future occupies of the proposed apartments will not be compromised. Where
external balcony/terrace areas are proposed, these are flanked by screen walls in order to ensure that
amenity is not compromised.
Some units have an aspect to the east that outlooks, in part, onto the gable end of no. 318 Great
Cheetham Street East at a distance of some 6 metres. Following negotiation and subsequent
revisions, amendments have been made to the internal layout of the apartments to ensure that living
rooms do not aspect onto this gable. Bedroom windows are still proposed to this elevation, although
I consider that given the nature of these rooms, and the fact that occupiers will be aware of this
situation before purchasing, that such a relationship is, on balance, acceptable.
Some concerns also arose regarding the extent of the projection of the building to the rear, which
projects beyond the adjoining no. 320 Great Cheetham Street East by approximately 14 metres. In
considering the acceptability of such a significant projection I am mindful of the fact that no
habitable room windows are contained in the rear elevation of this adjoining property and that the
scale and footprint of the proposed building is not materially different to the existing County
Market building. It is on this basis that I consider that this extent of projection along the common
boundary is acceptable.
The submitted noise assessment reports that the nearest existing residential properties to the
proposed development is at the first floor of no. 302 Great Cheetham Street East and the first floor
of no. 322Great Cheetham Street. However, as the proposed development consists of residential
apartments and retail units, it is likely that the new apartments will be the nearest residences to any
plant and associated with the retail units. The main sources of environmental noise are identified as
road traffic from Great Cheetham Street East and Bury New Road, infrequent traffic on access road
to the west, existing and proposed plant items, and pedestrians walking and talking.
The noise assessment recommends that in the interests of residential amenity a number of measures
should be incorporated into the development. This should include sound insulation for walls and
ceilings and maximum noise levels. At the time of writing, I am awaiting a response from the
Councils Environmental Consultants as to the acceptability of the assessment and any appropriate
conditions. Members will be updated on this matter prior to Panel.
Highway safety/parking issues
Policy A10 considers that development will be required to make adequate provision for disabled
drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists in accordance with the minimum standards set out in appendix B
and to not exceed the maximum car parking standards set out in appendix C.
6 no. parking spaces have been proposed for the apartments in a secured ground floor parking area,
1 of which would be a disabled parking space. 6 no. spaces for bicycles will also be accommodated
within this secure area. Access to this area is via the Local Authority Car Park to the rear.
44
As the site is situated within a Neighbourhood Centre it is well served by public transport and is in
close proximity to the associated shops and local services. In transportation terms, the site is a
sustainable location. In having regard to this, the Council’s maximum car parking standards, and
the need to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, it is considered the proposed
parking provision is acceptable, particularly given the presence of the said Local Authority car
park, which will be improved through the aforementioned lighting scheme.
In addition to parking issues, the footprint of building at ground floor has been revised following
negotiation in order to ensure a constant width of footpath, allowing pedestrian linkage between the
car park and the parade of retail units within the centre.
Contribution
Policy H8 requires adequate provision of formal and informal open space within housing
development. The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, adopted in March
2007, sets out the planning contributions required.
In accordance with the above policy, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution of £55,324
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. This calculation is set out below:
Type of contribution
Cost
Public Open Space
Large apartments (3 + beds)
£598 x 37
£22,126
£598 per bed space
Apartments with 2 beds or less
£658 per bed space
Public
realm, £1500 per dwelling
Infrastructure
and
heritage
Construction training £150 per dwelling
Climate change
£200 per dwelling
£658 x 6
£3,948
£1500 x 16
£24,000
£150 x 15
£200 x 15
£2,250
£3,000
£55,324
I have suggested 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
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, would not unacceptably compromise the amenities of existing or future
residents, or give rise to an unsatisfactory level of traffic generation. I am also of the view that the
proposed development is of a very high quality of design.
Approval, is therefore recommended.
45
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Subject to the following Conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment, improvement to infrastructure, heritage, construction training, sustainability and
replacement sports provision.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D03Y
3. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Preliminary Risk Assessment report,
including a conceptual model and a site walk over, to assess the potential risk of land
contamination, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Should a potential risk be identified then:
I. A Site Investigation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by 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. The details of any proposed Remedial Works shall be submitted to, and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such Remedial Works shall be incorporated into the
development during the course of construction and completed 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.
4. The A1 retail units hereby approved shall only operate between 7:30 to 22.00 Monday to
Sunday inclusive.
5. The development hereby approved shall be constructed to Secured By Design standards.
6. 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
46
public realm, infrastructure and heritage and training programmes for local construction
workers.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R007B
3. Standard Reason R028B
4. Standard Reason R024B
5. To ensure that the development is appropriately secured from crime in accordance with Policy
DES 10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
6. 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
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
3. Please note that an application for a licence under Section 177 of the Highways Act 1980 will
be required if any element of the proposed development would overhang the footway by more
than 150mm. The final decision to allow, or otherwise, any such development shall rest with
the Local Highway Authority. Please contact Urban Vision Highway Services on 0161 909
6505 for further information.
47
APPLICATION No:
07/55234/HH
APPLICANT:
D. March
LOCATION:
90 Wellington Street East Salford M7 4DW
PROPOSAL:
Construction of dormer extension in roof space at front and
rear of dwelling
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a terrace (third property from the end) residential property on the south
side of Wellington Street East, Salford M7. The immediate area comprises of residential
properties, the majority of which are terraced.
Permission is sought for the construction of dormer extensions in the roof space to the front and rear
of the property. The following describes the proposed development in detail.
The front of the property would include two pitched roofed dormers, they would both
project from the roof plane by a maximum of 3.7m. Each would be 1.7m in width, sited
0.2m below the ridgeline and 0.6m above the eaves.
The rear of the property would include two flat roof dormers. In plain view they would be
joined and ‘L’ shaped.
a. One would project from the main roof plain by a maximum of 3.7m. It would be
located 0.3m below the ridgeline and 0.4m above the eaves and have a width of
approximately 1.8m.
b. The second would project along the roof plain of the two-storey outrigger by a
maximum of 3.2m. It would extend the length/projection of the two-storey
outrigger, and it would be sited 0.3m above the eaves and it would project
approximately 0.6m above the existing ridge of the outrigger roof.
SITE HISTORY
None
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
A. 88 and 92 Wellington Street East, Salford
48
B. 15 Leicester Road, Salford
C. 65 Cardiff Street
REPRESENTATIONS
Councillor Conner has requested that the application is determined at Panel, for the following
reason:
1. The proposed extension is required to fulfil the needs of the occupants of 90 Wellington
Road East.
I have received information from the applicant outlining their special circumstance. Furthermore, I
have received a number of points in favour of the development from the applicant’s agent. The
issues raised will be discussed later in the report, in the section titled ‘Further Observations’
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific Policies: None
Other Policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alteration and Extension
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.
DESIGN
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.
Policy HE10 of the SPD states that planning permission will not normally be granted for the
erection of dormers on the roof plane facing an adopted highway, on a hipped side roof plane or
49
those that wrap around two or more different roof slopes unless they can be designed in a way
which does not have an unacceptable impact on the street scene. Acceptable dormers will need to
be: sited below the ridge of the dwelling; set well back from the eaves line, usually such that the
window sill rests on the roof plane; AND set well in from the eaves line and not built off any
external walls.

The proposed dormers located to the front of the property would be sited above the
eaves and below the ridgeline. They would be of an appropriated scale, and given that
they would match existing dormers located on Wellington Street East it is considered
that they would be in keeping with the immediate neighbours and would not look out of
place or have a significant effect on the character of the area or be an incongruous
feature in this setting. In respect of this, it is considered that the proposal would
comply with policies DES1, DES8 and HE10.

The proposed dormers to the rear, would be joined and therefore appear as one from
Leicester Road. Both would be sited above the eaves and above the ridgeline of the
two-storey outrigger. Given that the dormers would be visible from Leicester Road
and that they extend above the ridgeline of the two-storey outrigger, it is considered
that the proposal, due to its size siting and design would have an unacceptable impact
on the street scene. In respect of this, it is considered that the proposal would not
comply with Policy DES1
AMENITY
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 user of other developments.
Policy HE1 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that do not
maintain a minimum distance of 21m between facing principal windows of habitable rooms; 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.
The proposed dormers to the front would serve a bedroom. Directly opposite the proposed dormers
are a row of terrace properties. The proposed dormers would face the roof of the terraced properties
and the distance maintained would be approximately 25m. In respect of this, it is considered that no
unacceptable loss of privacy would be incurred to the occupant(s) of the properties to the front, in
accordance with Policy HE1.
The two dormers to the rear would both include a window serving a bedroom facing the rear.
Directly opposite the named windows would be the rear of a row of terraced properties
(maintaining a distance of approximately 10m). The named windows would face the roof of these
terraced properties and they would not be any closer to the properties than the existing bedroom
windows on the main rear elevation and the two-storey outrigger. They would however, increase
the intensity of overlooking to the occupant(s) of the properties to the rear. In respect of this, it is
50
considered that an unacceptable loss of privacy would be incurred to the occupant(s) of the
properties to the front.
Policy HE2 states that permission will not normally be granted for extensions that introduce
windows close to and directly overlooking the gardens of neighbouring dwellings. For the
purposes of this policy ‘close’ refers to a window within 5m of the boundary.
The side elevation of the proposed dormer projecting along the roof plane of the two-storey
out-rigger would include two windows facing the common boundary with 88 Wellington Road East
(one serving a bathroom and one serving a W.C.). This in accordance with Policy HE2 would
result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupant(s) of No.88. However, in order to secure to
privacy of the neighbouring property the applicant has indicated that the windows can be obscured
and a condition to ensure this would be attached. In respect of this, it is considered that no
unacceptable loss of privacy would result to the occupant(s) of No.88.
The rear elevation of the proposed dormer projecting from the roof plane of the two-storey
out-rigger would include a window serving a bedroom. This window would be approximately 3m
to the rear boundary, however, because of the alleyway to the rear, it would be in excess of 6m to
the nearest garden (15 Leicester Road). It is therefore considered that no unacceptable loss of
privacy would result to the occupant(s) of No.15.
The proposed dormers to the rear would result in the applicant’s house appearing to be 3 stories
high. This could well result in a loss of light/overbearing to any ground floor habitable room
windows located in the main rear elevation of the adjoining property (88 Wellington Road East).
However, in this instance No.88 has a single storey rear extension located along the common
boundary, therefore there is no ground floor habitable room window in the main rear elevation.
Consequently, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of
light/overbearing to the occupant(s) of No.88, in accordance with Policy DES7.
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS
The applicant has submitted details regarding their special circumstances: These include:
They are an orthodox Jewish family who play a full and active part in the local Jewish
community.
They have nine children at present with a further baby due in January. Space is critical, the
idea is to put two children in each bedroom. This will provide each of them with a
reasonable amount of space and a good environment to grow up in.
They have five brothers and sisters who stay at regular intervals, and who live in the
Manchester area.
They have grandparents, aunties, uncles who also stay over.
They are quite poor and they certainly do not have the finances to move to a larger house.
51
The SPD on housing extensions states “Personal circumstances, such as a disability, or the
specific requirements of minority groups may make it difficult to provide the necessary facilities
within the standards set out within this document. The council may interpret these standards
flexibly in such circumstances, but proposals that significantly deviate from them are still unlikely
to be appropriate. Consideration of personal circumstances will be assessed on a case-by-case
basis. Standards may be relaxed where an extension would provide basic facilities that are lacking
from a house such as a bathroom.” (Pg 33, Para 14.1)
In this instance it is considered that the applicant could very well lower the height of the proposed
dormer so that it does not extend above the ridgeline, thus, appearing acceptable within the street
scene, whilst still providing the same amount of extra accommodation.
In continuation of the issues raised by the applicant, the applicant’s agent has also made the
following points:
There are numerous loft conversion and dormers located on Wellington Street East that are
identical to the applicants that have received planning permission.
It is accepted that there are a number of loft conversions and dormers located on Wellington Road
East, which are very similar to the proposed development. Indeed, a number of applications have
been approved with dormers that exceed the height of the two-storey outrigger ridgeline (please see
location slide, which indicate properties within the locality that have received such permission). It
has been identified that these properties are located deep within the terraced street, and therefore
they are less visible from the street scene. Consequently, their impact is less unacceptable.
The visibility of the dormer from Leicester Road is limited as the roof of 92 Wellington Road East
obscures it.
It has been identified that the proposed dormer would be very much visible from Leicester Road (a
key road with much passing traffic) (Please see location slide, which indicates the approximate area
of visibility). The roof of No.92 would obscure it to some extent but given that the rear of the
applicants property is just 7m from Leicester Road, it is not considered enough to warrant approval.
There is only a ‘small window of opportunity’ on Leicester Road to look up and notice the
roof-scape
Although there is only a small window of visibility, the proposed dormer is still visible from the
street scene, as mentioned earlier the distance from the rear of the applicants property to Leicester
Road is just 7m.
Most of the roof-scape is completely obscured by the properties on Leicester Road
Notwithstanding this, the proposed dormer, as documented, would be visible from Leicester Road.
Consequently, it would have an unacceptable effect on the surrounding street scene.
The area is a poor area with a lot of social deprivation and it therefore seems rather tenuous that
the dormer could be construed as intrusive within the overall context of the community.
52
It is considered essential to preserve that character of any street. Therefore, to reaffirm, considering
the dominance of the dormer from Leicester Road its design is considered to be unacceptable.
There are other dormer loft conversions nearby and they haven’t affected the visual amenity of the
area (61 Ashbourne Road visible from Leicester Road)
The proposed dormer at 16 Ashbourne Road is sited above the eaves and below the ridgeline. It is
therefore considered not to have an unacceptable impact on the street scene.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on occupiers of
neighbouring properties. I also consider that the proposed extension would have an unacceptable
effect on the street scene. The applicant’s personal circumstances justify the need for extra living
space. However, I am of the opinion that these needs would be met if the applicant was to lower the
height of the dormer so that it was below the ridgeline of the two-storey outrigger.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would by reason of its design, size and siting be an unduly obtrusive
feature in the street-scene. seriously injuring the visual amenity of the area, contrary to Policy
DES1.
2. Standard Reason RR38D
APPLICATION No:
07/55456/FUL
APPLICANT:
Dencourt Limited
53
LOCATION:
Land West Of Stocks Hotel At Corner Of Bolton Road
Manchester Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a three/four storey building comprising commercial
use on ground floor with 24 apartments on upper floors
together with associated carparking and construction of new,
and alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
The site is situated on the corner of Manchester Road and Bolton Road and extends to an area of
approximately 0.161 hectares. The site is, for the most part, vacant and grassed. Advertisement
hoardings are present towards the site frontage. A number of self-seeded trees are also in situ.
The Gill Medical Centre is situated to the north of the site on Bolton Road. This is one and a half
storey’s high. The two-storey Stocks Hotel is to the east, to the Manchester Road frontage. A
recently completed apartment block occupies land to the northeast. This comprises a building
ranging from 3 to 4 storey’s in height.
SITE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Members will recall that an application for the redevelopment of the above site for a mixed-use
commercial/residential scheme was considered at the Panel meeting of the 5th July 2007
(07/54578/FUL). After consideration, the application was refused, contrary to recommendation, for
the following reason:“The proposed development does not incorporate sufficient on site parking provision to cater for
the needs of the development. This would lead to increased pressure for on-street parking in an
area where demand for parking is already high and where little or no surplus parking exists, to the
detriment of highway safety. The likely remoteness of off site parking provision would not be
conducive to ensuring natural surveillance of vehicles which would in turn lead to increased car
crime. As such, the proposed development would be contrary to policies A8, A10 and DES10 of
the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.”
An appeal has been lodged against the above decision. This application has been re-submitted
without prejudice to this appeal with a view to overcoming Members previous concerns. It has been
informally advised that the applicant would be willing to withdraw the appeal should planning
permission be granted on this revised submission.
07/54578/FUL - Erection of a three/four storey building comprising commercial use on ground
floor with 24 apartments on upper floors together with associated car parking and construction of
new, and alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses
Refused 16/07/07.
54
98/38641/OUT - Outline application for the erection of two-storey building to be used for
community training for people with learning disabilities & associated car parking Permitted.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
This revised application has been submitted in an attempt to overcome concerns expressed in the
previous reason for refusal. The primary changes between this submission and that previously
refused are in relation to the car parking area. An additional 9 no. spaces have been provided within
the site, creating a total of 20 no. spaces (The previously refused scheme provided 11 no. spaces for
the proposed apartments). Spaces will be solely available for occupiers of the residential elements
of the scheme.
Amendments in order to accommodate additional car parking provision have necessitated revisions
to the building itself. Whilst the overall number of units for which permission is sought remains
unchanged, the footprint of the building has been set in at ground floor level approximately 11
metres from the northern boundary of the site (the common boundary with the Medical Centre).
Consequently, there is a gap along the Bolton Road street frontage between the Medical Centre and
proposed building, offering views towards the extended car park. In order to reduce the prominence
of the gap the applicant has, following negotiation, set the boundary wall to the car park behind the
front face of the building. This has enabled more structured landscaping to the site frontage. In
addition, a strong brick wall, pier, and railing boundary treatment is proposed. The first and second
floors of the building are similar in footprint to the building previously proposed.
The design of the building in terms of materials, detailing, and appearance remains largely as
previously proposed. The predominant material will be brick and glazing, with stone to window
surrounds. The proposed stairwell, which is enclosed with timber and glazing has been relocated
along the building frontage. It will still occupy a relatively central position at the junction.
Amendments have also been made to the level of commercial floorspace that will be provided. This
has been reduced from 764 square metres to 633 square metres. Members may recall that the
Officer report for the previous proposal recommended that A1 use should be excluded. This was to
be secured by way of condition and followed concerns raised by the Spatial Planning Section. On
this occasion, the applicant is again seeking A1 use within the range of uses that would be
permissible at ground floor. The overall range of uses proposed include A1, A2, A3, A4, and A5.
Such a range of uses is sought in the first instance given the speculative nature of the development.
I shall comment further on this aspect of the scheme in the Planning Appraisal section of this report.
As reported, the overall number and mix of dwelling proposed remains as previously sought with
the 24no. apartments comprising 4 no. one bedroom flats, 17 no. two bedroom flats, and 3 no. three
bedroom flats. Cycle storage provision and bin stores are again provided, as are private and
communal terraces on the fourth floor.
Access is again via Harriet Street.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 12th October 2007
A press notice was published on the 8th October 2007
55
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Units 1 – 6, Old Co Op Buildings, High Street
Basement & ground floor, 2 Bridgewater Road
1 and 2 – 10 (evens) Bridgewater Road
1-25 (odds), 9B, Flat 15, 23A, 23B Bolton Road
1, 5, 7, 9, 11, 141 Manchester Road
2 Hodge Road
1 – 25 (odds), 23A, 23B Bolton Road
First floor & second floor, 3 Bolton Road
9B Bolton Road
5 Harriet Street
7 Warwick Road
9 Blantyre Avenue
Stocks Hotel, Manchester Road
Cottage Tandoori, Manchester Road
Walkden Congregational Church, Smith Street
REPRESENTATIONS
1 no. objection has been submitted by a local resident on the grounds that: There are already hundreds of apartments in the Walkden area, many of which are
empty. It is inappropriate to allow more
 It is inappropriate to allow new retail/commercial units when there are already so many
empty in Walkden Centre itself.
The Gill Medical Centre has submitted an objection to the application on the following:






Whilst the number of parking spaces have been increased they are still insufficient for
the proposed flats and the 30 full-time and 15 part-time employees expected to be
working in the commercial units
The Medical centre already struggles with the limited number of parking spaces. The
proposed development would exacerbate this problem.
The Ellesmere Centre on the opposite side of Bolton Road has a large number of empty
units. Can Walkden support a further expansion of commercial space?
There are still vacant flats on the recently completed development in Stocks Court. Is it
appropriate to allow more
The erection of a four storey building adjacent to the Medical Centre car park will
create a dark space between the church and the new apartments, putting users of the car
park at risk
Whilst an objection is maintained, should the development proceed guarantees should
be secured that building works will not obstruct the entrance to the car park for the
centre
CONSULTATIONS
56
Engineering and Highways – No objection in principle. Advise that applicant is aware of drainage
issues and need to obtain relevant consents from United Utilities and the Highways Maintenance
Division. This will be dealt with by way of an informative guidance note, should Members be
minded to approve the application.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Advise that the developer appears to have
taken account of need to create a secure environment. GM Police would like to see each parking
bay marked and dedicated to individual apartments to avoid conflict between users of the car park
GM Geological Unit – No objection, in principle, subject to a condition for a Preliminary Risk
Assessment involving a site investigation for contamination, and restriction of hours of use and
servicing
United Utilities – No objection, in principle.
MAIN POLICIES TO BE CONSIDERED
NATIONAL PLANNING GUIDANCE
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing
Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control
Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport
Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and noise
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 – Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
ST2
ST8
ST11
ST12
DES1
DES2
DES7
DES9
DES10
DES11
H1
H2
H8
Housing Supply
Environmental Quality
Location of New Development
Development Density
Respecting Context
Circulation and Movement
Amenity of Users and Neighbours
Landscaping
Design and Crime
Design Statements
Provision of new Housing Development
Managing the Supply of Housing
Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
57
S2
S4
Retail and Leisure Developments Outside Town Centres and Neighbourhood Centres
Amusement Centres, Restaurants and Cafes, Drinking Establishments and Hot Food
Takeaways
A2
Cyclists, Pedestrians, and the Disabled
A10
Provision of Car, Cycle, and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN16 Contaminated Land
EN17 Pollution Control
DEV5 Planning Conditions and Obligations
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The application site is unallocated within the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
(UDP) and consequently no site-specific policies apply. The development must therefore be
assessed against general plan policies and any other material planning considerations.
In having regard to the above I consider that the main issues to assess in the determination of this
application are: whether the principle of the proposed development is acceptable; whether the
proposed development is of an appropriate layout, design and scale; whether there would be any
impact on the amenity of existing or future residents in the area; whether there would be sufficient
parking; and whether there would be an appropriate contribution towards the provision of open
space. Dealing with each issue in turn I would comment as follows:
Principle of development
As reported, the application site is unallocated within the UDP and no site-specific policies apply.
However, reference must be made general plan policies. UDP Policy ST11 outlines the criteria for
the location of new development and sets out a sequential approach that should be adopted in
bringing forward sites for development. This includes, in the first instance, the re-use of existing
buildings and the development of previously developed land in areas that are well served by a
choice of means of transport and are well related to housing, employment, services and
infrastructure. The application site is currently vacant and was previously occupied by terraced
properties. It is located close to Walkden Town Centre, and consequently represents a sequentially
favourable site. I am satisfied that the principle of the development on the site is acceptable, in
accordance with the previous recommendation to the Panel with respect to application
07/54578/FUL.
Acceptability of type and mix of residential units
Policy H1 of the UDP states that all new residential developments should contribute towards a
balanced mix of dwellings in the local area. Further to this, policy HOU1 of the Council’s Housing
Planning Guidance (HPG) notes that in West Salford, the large majority of dwellings should be in
the form of family housing rather than apartments, unless an applicant can clearly demonstrate that
there are special circumstances that justify an alternative approach having regard to criteria A to H
58
of UDP policy H1. The scheme proposes 100% apartments and therefore does not accord with the
broad thrust of policy HOU1.
The submitted planning statement seeks to justify 100% apartment provision in terms of
accessibility and design. The sites location on the very edge of a defined town centre would
suggest it has good accessibility to a broad range of services and facilities. This, coupled with the
sites prominent location at a major road junction, justifies, in my view, the need for an “impact”
building of reasonable scale and of a suitably high quality. It is on this basis that I am satisfied that
in this particular instance, a development comprising of 100% apartments is justified, as was the
case with the previous recommendation to Panel with respect to application 07/54578/FUL.
HPG Policy HOU2 states that where apartments are proposed, a broad mix of sizes both in terms of
the number of bedrooms and net residential floorspace of the apartments should be provided.
Paragraph 4.31 of the reasoned justification to the policy requires the majority of apartments in new
developments to have two or three bedrooms with a floorspace of 57 square metres, which is
considered adaptable to changing needs. The proposal provides a reasonable mix of dwellings in
terms of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom properties and all but 2 of the 24 apartments proposed have floor areas
in excess of 57 square metres. I am of the opinion that the proposal therefore complies with the
requirements of policy HOU2.
Commercial uses
There is no objection, in principle to the use of the ground floor building for commercial use.
However, concerns remain with respect to the applicant’s intention to potentially accommodate A1
use(s).
The previously refused planning application for this site proposed, as originally submitted, to
include A1 use(s) at ground floor level. However, following concerns raised by Spatial Planning
Section of the Council that insufficient evidence had been provided to demonstrate that A1 uses
would not effect the existing retail units within Walkden Town Centre, in accordance with the
requirements of UDP Policy S2, such uses were to be restricted by way of a condition. At the time
of the previous application the applicant raised no objection to the imposition of such a condition.
However, as part of this submission, the applicant no longer wishes to prohibit such uses. An
assessment of the application must therefore be made on this basis.
The applicant has provided no evidence of any retail need for the proposed development (either in
quantitative or qualitative terms), or provided information of any sequential assessment of whether
existing retails units in Walkden Town Centre could more appropriately accommodate such
provision. In summary, an assessment has not been provided on the impact of the development on
the vitality and viability of this existing centre. In having regard to this, I have no alternative but to
conclude, on the basis of the information available, that to allow A1 uses within the development is
inappropriate. I am satisfied that should Members be minded to approve the application, such
concerns can be addressed through the imposition of a condition to any planning permission which
prohibits A1 use.
Design and appearance
Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS 1) – Delivering Sustainable Development makes it clear that
good design helps create attractive, sustainable, usable and adaptable places and that this is
inherently linked to good planning. Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3), relating specifically to
59
new housing development, encourages Local Planning Authorities to promote good design in such
development to create attractive, high-quality environments in which people choose to live. UDP
Policy DES 1 reflects this national guidance, re-enforcing the view that all new developments
should achieve high standards of design, including urban design that has sustainability as key
objective. It reports 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.
I am mindful that the site occupies a prominent position at the junction of Manchester Road and
Bolton Road, along one of the primary arterial routes across and into the city. It is essentially a
gateway site close to the established Walkden Town Centre.
The building has a curved frontage to Manchester Road and Bolton Road and would be 3/4 storey’s
in height. The building has a maximum height of 15.5 metres. The fourth floor would be recessed
1.2 metres from the main elevation. It is also set in from the from both the north and east of the site,
having the effect of reducing the massing of the building. The medical centre situated to the north
of the site is a one and a half storey building with a height of 5.3 metres adjacent to the site
boundary rising to a maximum height of 8.6 metres. The Stocks Hotel situated to the east of the site
separated by Harriet Street is a two storey building and has a height of 11 metres adjacent to the site
boundary rising to a maximum height of 12.7 metres.
Whilst I note that the building is significant in height and mass I consider it to be appropriate for
such a location. I welcome the use of four storeys, which will complement the height of other
buildings which also front onto Manchester Road at this cross road junction, most notably the Bulls
Head Public House, the Royal Bank of Scotland building, Barclays Bank, Co-op Travel, and the
building on the opposite corner of Manchester Road which contains a variety of uses. The curved
corner of the building at the junction of Manchester Road and Bolton Road will ensure that the
development adequately addresses the street, to the betterment of the street scene.
Notwithstanding the acceptability of general design and scale principles, concerns did originally
arise given changes to the footprint of the building necessitated by an increase in the extent of the
car parking area. As reported, the building itself is now set in from the northern boundary of the site
by approximately 11 metres at ground floor level. In street scene terms I consider that such a gap is
not ideal, particularly given that plans originally submitted as part of this application also illustrated
that the wall that delineates the car park would project out beyond the front face of the building
towards Bolton Road. In order to overcome such concerns the applicants have, following
negotiation, submitted revised plans and specifications which illustrate that the boundary wall to
the car park will be set back marginally behind the front face of the building. This will allow
additional structured landscaping in front of the wall. It is on this basis, together with the fact that a
high quality boundary wall/pier and railing is proposed, that I am of the opinion that, on balance,
the development is acceptable and will not affect the Bolton Road street scene to such an extent that
would reasonably warrant refusal of the application on these grounds.
Turning to materials the submitted design and access statement refers to a palette of materials
comprising brick (predominant material), glazing, timber cladding, and stone. I have no objection,
in principle, to the material proposed when viewed as part of the wider design. Whilst it is the
applicant’s intention to present a pallet of materials to Members, it is recommended that a condition
should be attached to any planning consent requiring the submission and approval of materials prior
60
to the commencement of development. This will ensure that the materials are of a sufficiently high
quality.
UDP 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. The building will allow natural surveillance of the car
parking area and thought has been given to ensuring that no features of the design and layout would
obscure entrances or offer opportunities for criminals to hide from view. Further, I note that secure
cycle storage is provided to the entrance of the building. I am satisfied that the development accords
with DES10. Comments from Greater Manchester Police concur with this view, although I note
that they also consider that the parking bays need to be specifically allocated for commercial and
residential uses. As detailed above, the parking spaces will be for the residential uses only, with the
car parking being gated. In having regard to this I do not consider that parking bays need to be
specifically allocated in this instance as they would be available for residents on a first come, first
served basis. It would not, in my view, be appropriate to ‘cherry-pick’ which residents should have
parking spaces.
Trees
There are a number of self-seeded trees within the site all of which would be removed as part of the
development. The Consultant aroriculturalist had no objection to the loss of the trees at the time of
the previous application earlier this year. I remain of the view that the trees do not present a
valuable asset and would not be worthy of protection. Replacement landscaping and public realm
works will be secured by way of conditions and commuted payment, should Members be minded to
approve the application.
Amenity
Policy DES7 considers that all new development will be required to provide potential users with a
satisfactory level of amenity and ensure that the amenities of existing residents are not
unacceptably compromised.
There are no primary habitable room windows proposed in the north or east elevations facing the
medical centre and the Stocks Hotel. The proposed habitable rooms to the rear and the proposed
roof terrace are situated at their closest point 30 metres from the apartment block to the north east of
the site at an oblique angle. Habitable room windows in the south elevation are situated 37 metres
from the commercial properties opposite and habitable room windows in the west elevation are
situated 32 metres from the commercial properties opposite. I am of the opinion that such
separation distances are acceptable to ensure that the amenities of both existing and future residents
are not unacceptably affected.
I am mindful that commercial uses are proposed at ground floor, and that the impact and
compatibility of such uses in light of dwellings above needs consideration. Specifically, regard
should be had to noise and disturbance by reason of deliveries and the comings and goings of
customers to commercial uses, and traffic noise. To this end environmental consultants have
assessed the proposed development, including a noise assessment, on behalf of the Council and
advised as follows.
It is noted that the site is located on the corner of two busy main roads. Consequently the western
and southern faēades of the building could be affected by noise from road traffic. The proximity of
61
the commercial Stocks Hotel is also noted in terms of its potential to impact on adjacent residential
uses by virtue of activities within the service yard. It is considered that any impact from noise from
these sources can be adequately mitigated by means of conditions. Members will note that I have
therefore recommended conditions restricting the opening hours and deliveries for commercial
uses, and setting a maximum background noise level for fixed plant and machinery.
In addition to the above conditions, which form part of this recommendation, the Council’s
Environmental consultants also recommended that A5 uses (Hot Food Take Aways) should be
prohibited by way of condition. Whilst I accept that such uses, by their very nature, can lead to
significant amenity problems by reason of the comings and goings, and congregation of customers,
I am mindful in this instance of the location of the site, on the edge of a well established town
centre. I consider that it would be onerous to prohibit A5 uses all together. I consider it more
appropriate to restrict the hours of operation of such activities to those times advocated in the
Council’s SPD on Hot Food Take Aways. This states that hours of use would ordinarily be from
8.00-22.00 Monday to Saturday and not at all on Sunday. However, the SPD also states that regard
should be had to other uses in the locality (such as a Public House, for example), which may operate
later in the evening, providing a late night economy on which a take-away use may rely in terms of
the viability of the business. Regard must also be had to the accumulation of such uses and
ultimately the impact on the level of amenity enjoyed by existing and future residents. I am satisfied
that an A5 use could be accommodated at this location without unacceptably compromising
amenity. However, I consider it appropriate to restrict such operations, in being mindful of the
potential disturbance that would be caused by comings and goings of customers. I also note the
public house use nearby, on which such a use may be reliant for trade. In striking a balance between
the impact on amenity and the need to operate reasonably late in the evening I consider it
appropriate in this instance to restrict the hours of operation to between 8.00 – 23.00 Monday to
Saturday and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Highway safety/parking issues
Policy A10 considers that development will be required to make adequate provision for disabled
drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists in accordance with the minimum standards set out in appendix B
and to not exceed the maximum car parking standards set out in appendix C.
In accordance with the above, 20 parking spaces have been proposed for the apartments, 2 of which
would be disabled parking spaces. 2 motorcycle spaces are proposed and space for 18 bicycles
within an internal, safe and secure cycle store is provided. Access to the site would be from Harriet
Street.
As the site is situated adjacent to Walkden Town Centre it is well served by public transport and is
within easy walking distance of the associated shops and local services. In transportation terms, the
site is a sustainable location. In having regard to this, the Council’s maximum car parking standards
and the need to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, it is considered the
proposed parking provision is acceptable. Moreover, the level of overall parking provision has
increased as part of this application in light of Members concerns, as reflected in the reason for
refusal, on the previous scheme.
62
Contribution
Policy H8 requires adequate provision of formal and informal open space within housing
development. The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document sets out the planning
contributions required.
In accordance with the above policy, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution of £90,398
plus a 2.5% administration fee towards public open space in the vicinity of the site; improvements
to the city’s public realm, heritage and infrastructure; the training of local residents in construction
skills; and the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions. I have suggested 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.
Other matters
Following negotiation, and discussions with the Councils Environmental Services Division the
applicant has made provision for refuse and recycling facilities within the site. Essentially, the 2 no.
bin stores have been enlarged and have been specifically allocated for general and recyclable waste.
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, would not unacceptably compromise the amenities of existing or future
residents, or give rise to an unsatisfactory level of traffic generation. I am also of the view that the
proposed development is of a relatively high quality of design. Moreover, it is considered that
additional parking provision has addressed Members concerns in relation to 07/54578/FUL).
Approval, is therefore recommended.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Subject to the following Conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment, improvement to public, infrastructure, heritage, construction training, sustainability
and replacement sports provision.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D03Y
3. The car parking, disabled parking spaces, cycle and motorcycle spaces shown on the approved
plan (0207237 01 Rev H, received 19/11/07) shall be constructed and laid out prior to the
occupation of the residential units and shall be made available at all times thereafter.
4. The use of the ground floor units, shall relate only to uses within classes A2, A3, A4 or A5 of
the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005 or in any provision equivalent to the
63
class in any statutory instrument amending or replacing that Order
5. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Preliminary Risk Assessment report,
including a conceptual model and a site walk over, to assess the potential risk of land
contamination, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Should a potential risk be identified following discussions with the Local Planning Authority:
I. A Site Investigation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by 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. The details of any proposed Remedial Works shall be submitted to, and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such Remedial Works shall be incorporated into the
development during the course of construction and completed 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.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for external
lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any of the apartments
hereby approved, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
7. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation to
provision of permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials and delivery and
collection of equipment, provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's
vehicles, wheelwashing facilities, street sweeping and no development or activities related or
incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement.
8. No A3, A4, or A5 unit shall be brought into use unless and until a detailed scheme for the
extraction system which treats fumes and odours before their emission to the atmosphere so as
to render them innocuous has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme shall detail how the extraction unit will be attenuated and mounted to
minimise the transmission of airbourne and structure bourne noise and vibration. The works
forming the approved scheme shall be completed entirely in accordance with the approved
scheme and thereafter the works forming the approved scheme shall at all times remain in
place.
9. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning
Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that
commuted sums as required by Policy DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
64
and the policies contained within the Planning Obligations SPD, will be paid to the Local
Planning Authority for improvements to and maintenance of existing open space provision and
public realm, infrastructure and heritage and training programmes for local construction
workers.
10. Standard Condition C01Y
11. The loading bay shall NOT operate on a Sunday and shall only operate between the hours of
07:30 and 17:30 Monday to Friday and 07:30 and 13:00 on Saturdays.
12. Any class A2, A3, and A4 unit hereby approved shall only operate between 7:30 to 23:30
Monday to Saturday and 8:30 to 22:30 on Sundays.
13. Any class A5 unit hereby approved shall only operate between 8.00 to 23.00 Monday to
Saturday and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
14. The class A2-A5 uses hereby approved shall not be brought into use unless details of the
numbers and size of each unit have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The development shall then be implemented fully in accordance with the
approved scheme and shall be retained at all times thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
15. The recommended acoustic mitigation measures detailed in the Hepworth Acoustics Report
Number 4672 1v1 (June 2007) shall be incorporated into the construction of the building and
retained as such thereafter. Any deviations from the recommendations shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to their incorporation within the
building fabric. Prior to first occupation of the site, a verification report confirming all acoustic
protection measures have been incorporated into the building design shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
16. The rating level (LAeq,T) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the development,
when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90,T) at any
time when measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises.
17. Prior to the commencement of development, or in accordance with a phasing scheme that shall
firstly be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a scheme
detailing soundproofing measures to be installed to protect the amenity of future occupants of
the apartments hereby approved from noise and disturbance created by the commercial units
hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Once agreed in writing, all approved soundproofing measures shall be implemented
prior to the first use of the premises as an A2,A3,A4 or A5 use, or in accordance with an agreed
phasing scheme and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
65
3. Standard Reason R011B
4. To protect the vitality and viability of the nearby Town Centre, in accordance with Planning
Policy Statement 6 - Planning for Town Centres and Policy S2 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan
5. Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
6. Standard Reason R005B
7. Standard Reason R005B
8. Standard Reason R005B
9. To ensure that the development hereby approved is successful and sustainable and that it meets
the need for new and improved facilities and infrastructure it generates. This is in accordance
with Policy DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
10. Standard Reason R004B
11. Standard Reason R024B
12. Standard Reason R024B
13. Standard Reason R024B
14. To protect the vitality and viability of the nearby Town Centre, in accordance with Planning
Policy Statement 6 - Planning for Town Centres and Policy S2 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan
15. Standard Reason R024B
16. Standard Reason R024B
17. Standard Reason R024B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
2. The Development Services Directorate (Highways Section) should be consulted regarding the
construction of a footway crossing, the cost of which will be the responsibility of the developer.
66
3. If, during any works on site, contamination is suspected or found, or contamination is caused,
the LPA 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 LPA.
4. Noise measurements and assessments to comply with condition 16 of this permission shall be
carried out according to BS4142; 1997. ‘t’ refers to any 1 hour period between 07.00hrs and
23.00hrs and any 5 minute period between 23.00hrs and 07.00hrs.
APPLICATION No:
07/55546/HH
APPLICANT:
G J Martin
LOCATION:
17 Wensley Road Salford M7 3GJ
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a first floor side extension
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
This application relates to a detached dwelling on Wensly Road, Salford. The rear/side common
boundary with no.19 consists of a 1.5m high wall and the rear/side common boundary with no.15
consists of a 1.5m high fence. The front boundary consists of a 1m wall. The applicant is a Salford
Council employee.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
Consent is sought for the erection of a first floor side extension. The proposal would project
approximately 1.95m from the gable elevation, it would be approximately 7.6m in depth, it would
be set back approximately 2.5m from the existing front elevation and it would have an overall
height of 7.4m. It would provide a bathroom to the rear elevation and a store room to the front
elevation.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was permitted in November 2003 for the erection of a two storey side
extension and the erection of a single storey rear extension.
CONSULTATIONS
67
N/A
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
15 to 19 Wensley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None
DES1- Respecting Context
DES8- Alterations and Extensions
DES7- Amenity of Neighbours and Occupiers
Supplementary Planning Document- House Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the proposed extension on
the amenity of surrounding and future residents and the impact of the proposed development on the
character of the area. The main policies of relevance are DES1, DES7 and DES8 of the City of
Salford Adopted UDP and policies HE2 and HE8 of the House Extensions SPD.
Design
UDP Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context and
respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated and contribute towards a local
identity and distinctiveness. 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. The proposed development would be visible from the street and it would
be visible from the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. However the proposal has been
designed well with materials to match the existing. I would therefore not consider that the proposed
development would be an incongruous feature in this residential setting in accordance with policies
DES1 and DES8.
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 side common boundary with the application site and no.15 is set at an angle. The
proposed development would be approximately 0.1m from the side common boundary at its closest
and at its furthest it would be 2m from the side common boundary. However the proposal would be
set back 2.5m from the existing front elevation. I would therefore not consider the proposal would
68
create a potential terracing effect nor would it harm the positive character of this residential area in
accordance with DES1,DES8 and HE8.
Impact on amenity of neighbouring occupiers etc
Policy DES7 contends 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 amenity of occupiers or users of other developments.
Policy HE2 of the House Extensions SPD states planning permission will not normally be granted
for extensions that introduce windows or open aspects close to and directly overlooking the
gardens of neighbouring dwellings. The term ‘close to’ refers to 5m, however this can be overcome
with obscure glazing. There would be a bathroom window introduced to the side elevation of the
proposal that would be approximately 0.2m from the side common boundary with no.15. However
a condition could be attached to ensure this window is obscured glazed. There would be a bathroom
window introduced to the rear elevation of the proposal that would be approximately 12m from the
rear common boundary. There are no neighbouring properties to the rear of the application site.
There would be a window introduced to the front elevation of the proposal fronting a storeroom that
would be approximately 19m from the front elevation of the proposal and it would not be facing
any habitable room windows on the front elevation of neighbouring properties to the front. I would
therefore not consider the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers
in terms of privacy in accordance with HE2 and DES7.
The proposed development would be approximately 2.3m at its furthest from the side elevation of
no.15 and at its closest it would be approximately 1.2m from the side elevation of no.15. There are
no habitable room windows on the side elevation of no.15. The proposal would not project beyond
a 45 degree line taken from the rear elevation of no.15. I would therefore not consider the proposal
would have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring occupiers in terms of loss of light or
overbearing in accordance with DES7.
The proposal would be approximately 9.2m from the side common boundary with no.19 and it
would be approximately 12m from the rear common boundary, there are no neighbouring
properties to the rear. I would therefore not consider the proposal would have an unacceptable
impact on neighbouring occupiers in terms of loss of light or overbearing in accordance with DES7.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the proposal would not have a 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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
69
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D01B
3. Standard Condition B07B
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R007B
3. Standard Reason R005B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that their site lies within 250m of a former landfill site. In the event
that landfill gas is migrating, suitable precautions need to be undertaken to avoid the ingress of
landfill gas into the new extension or existing house. It is strongly advised that the detailed
design specification incorporates suitable measures to mitigate against the ingress of landfill
gas. Any measures would be expected to conform to the standards contained in the 1990
Building research Establishment Report "Construction of new buildings on gas-contaminated
land"
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th December 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/55240/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Connections Partnership
LOCATION:
Alleyway Adjacent To 23-21 Moorfield Road Salford M6
7EY
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.2m high gates to alleyway
WARD:
Claremont
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
This application relates to an alleyway measuring 44.98m in length that runs between 21 and 23
Moorfield Road and Norbury Avenue. The immediate area is predominantly residential.
The gating order associated with this planning application is also an item on this agenda.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
Consent is sought for the erection of two 2.2m high alley gates.
Gate 1 – located between the gable ends of 21 and 23 Moorfield Road.
Gate 2 – located at the head of Norbury Avenue between a fence and wall in excess of 2.2m in
height.
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
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 18th October 2007
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on September 6th 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39 Moorfield Road, Salford, M6 7EY,
1 Denstone Road, Salford, M6 7FG,
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 Norbury Avenue, Salford, M6 7EG,
REPRESENTATIONS
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th December 2007
I have received two letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
The gates would serve no purpose except looking like an industrial estate
The gates will not deter tresspassers as they will not lock
One of the letters was sent in error from a resident of Irlam.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:DES1 – Respecting Context
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, whether the gates would have any significant impact upon visual or
residential amenity; whether the gates would provide a satisfactory level of security for nearby
residents and whether there would remain an adequate level of access.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th December 2007
Policy DC18 also requires that crime prevention measures do not compromise good design and
should not have a fortress like appearance
The gates are designed so that scaling them would be difficult. They are also permeable design
and therefore it is still possible to view the area which is being sealed off in accordance with
DC18.
Policy A2 states that development that would result in the diversion or extinguishment of an
existing public right of way will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that adequate
levels of access for the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists will be maintained to, around, and
where appropriate, through the site. The proposed alleygates would restrict the use of the
alleyway to the residents adjacent to the alleyway. The alternative routes would be to walk
along Norbury Avenue, onto Romiley Street, then onto Fairfield Street where it joins Doveleys
road then turn onto Bolton road walk along Bolton Road then turn onto Moorfield Road. The
route is 337m long. The alternative route is adopted highway with street lighting. I would
therefore consider there to remain adequate acess for pedestrians and the disabled. I do not
consider that the proposed alleygates would affect the safe and convenient access to and around
the site in accordance with Policy A2.
With regard to objections received the issue relating to impact on surrounding area has been
discussed above. The gates would be locked and therefore provide added security for residents.
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. Standard Condition D06A
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
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.
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th December 2007
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th December 2007
75