APPLICATION No:
07/55272/COU
APPLICANT:
Greenacre Restaurants Ltd
LOCATION:
15 Bridgewater Road Worsley M28 3JE
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from financial/professional services (Class A2) to
restaurant (Class A3), construction of disabled access,
installation of security shutters/window railings and
downlighting to front elevation.
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the ground floor and first floor of an end-terrace property, which is
currently vacant but has been used previously as offices / estate agent’s offices. The property is
located on the junction of Bridgwater Road and Walter Street and has a small walled-yard area to
the rear of the property.
The property is located within Walkden Town Centre. It is located adjacent to a number of
commercial premises including a hot food take-away, immediately adjacent, a solicitors office
located across from the premises on Longley Road and Council offices and a residential home
across Bridgewater Road. There are a number of other commercial premises on Bridgewater Road
including a restaurant, engineers, travel agent and an optician. The site is separated from properties
to the rear on Memorial Road/Walter Street by a service alley.
Abbeyfield House, the residential home across Bridgewater Road, and properties adjacent to the
solicitors premises on Longley Road are the closest residential properties to the site.
It is proposed to convert the existing premises into a restaurant. The premises will have eating areas
on the ground and upper floors, with kitchen and wc areas located to the rear of the premises. The
proposal includes the provision of a disabled access ramp to the front of the building, and, in the
amended plans, grilles/railings are proposed to the ground floor windows of the property to retain
openness of the frontage.
An indicative photo has been submitted to show the type of shutter to be used for the doorway. It is
proposed to install downlighting to the front of the building.
The application has been amended to remove a segregated outdoor area that was proposed to the
front of the property, and associated awning and guard rails. The applicant has also undertaken to
reduce the opening hours as proposed from 11am to 1am seven days a week to 11am-11.30pm
Sunday-Thursday and 11-Midnight Fridays & Saturdays.
These changes have been sought in response to concerns over residential amenity due to noise and
disturbance from the Greater Manchester Geological Unit, and due to the presence of residential
properties within the locality.
1
Additional information and plans have been submitted by the applicant to show the position and
type of extraction flue to be used.
There is no off-street parking available for the proposed development.
CONSULTATIONS
GREATER MANCHESTER GEOLOGICAL UNIT – Initial concerns were expressed over the use
of the outdoor area and opening hours which have been addressed through a revision to the plans,
and the hours proposed. The flue type proposed by the applicant (shown in additional plans) has
been accepted in principle, although a condition will be recommended regarding the exact
specification of extraction equipment.
An informative will be added to advise the applicant that no use of the outdoor area is included
within this planning permission.
GREATER MANCHESTER POLICE - Have recommended with regard to the provision of
shutters that internal shutters should be used, but if this would not be possible, that the shutter
should be integrated into the fabric of the building.
The use of the barriers for the outdoor area were also questioned. The barriers have since been
removed from the scheme.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flat, 5 Bridgewater Road, Worsley
1 Memorial Road, Worsley, 3 Bridgewater Road, Worsley,
9 Bridgewater Road, Worsley,
7 Memorial Road, Worsley,
Abbeyfield House, Bridgewater Road, Worsley,
5A Memorial Road, Worsley,
5 Memorial Road, Worsley,
12 Bridgewater Road, Worsley,
5 Bridgewater Road, Worsley,
7 Bridgewater Road, Worsley,
11 Bridgewater Road, Worsley,
13 Bridgewater Road, Worsley,
Ground Floor Flat, Abbeyfield House, Bridgewater Road, Worsley,
Flat Above, 3 Bridgewater Road, Worsley,
3 - 5 Bridgewater Road, Worsley,
First Floor, 1 Memorial Road, Worsley,
Basement, 5 Memorial Road, Worsley,
In addition, a site notice was posted adjacent to the premises dated 14/09/07
REPRESENTATIONS
I have had a request from Cllr Turner that this application be reported to Panel because of the
following concerns:
2
Public Nuisance
Anti-Social Behaviour
Crime & Disorder
Impact on Neighbouring Residents
I have received 12 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application. Four
of these letters are from two residents. The following issues have been raised –
Insufficient notification of the application
Large number of existing eating/drinking establishments
The proposal would exacerbate existing parking problems within the area, and encourage
parking outside adjacent residents’ properties. There is not enough parking at present. Council
should provide residents’ parking
Unsuitable hours of use and close proximity of residential occupiers. Hours should be reduced
Increase of drink-related crime
Existing and increased noise and disturbance for adjacent residents, including problems of live
and recorded music
Smells and odours
Problems of vermin associated with food waste
Problems of litter and overflowing bins
Plans should be geared to utilising the Ellesmere Centre and providing a market in Walkden
Use of outdoor area would be unacceptable to residents
The premises is not large enough for a restaurant
The disabled access will protrude onto the footway and will be a health and safety obstruction
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Site allocation : Town/Neighbourhood Centre
Other policies: S4 – Amusement Centres, Restaurants and Cafes, Drinking Establishments and
Hot Food Takeaways
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
Supplementary Planning Document – Hot Food Take Aways
EN17 – Pollution Control
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
Principle
Policy S4 states that restaurant uses will not be permitted where the use would have an
unacceptable impact, either in itself or cumulatively, on:
3
The amenities of surrounding residential occupiers by reason of noise, disturbance,
smells, fumes, litter, vehicular traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic;
The safety of pedestrians and road users, with respect to car parking, servicing or the
effect on the free flow of traffic;
The vitality and viability of a town centre or neighbourhood centre;
Visual amenity; or
The drainage system.
The property is located within a town centre. The applicant has stated that the premises has been
used previously as offices / estate agents offices.
It is apparent from a site visit that the premises is vacant and has not been in use for some time. It is
considered that the proposal would make a positive contribution towards the vitality and viability of
the centre by bringing a vacant unit back into use, and is likely to increase activity and footfall
within the locality.
There are other retail uses on Bridgewater Road including a travel agent and a dispensing opticians.
There will be no net loss of retail units as a result of the development. It is not considered that there
will be any cumulative impact on the viability of retail character of either Bridgewater Road or
Walkden Centre as a whole.
The character of the front of the property, which comprises two large glazed bay windows will be
retained in this application, and it is considered that retention will assist in retaining the retail
character of the frontage.
The use of the premises as a restaurant will contribute to choice and range of facilities within the
locality, and it is considered that the use of the property as a restaurant is an anticipated use within
town centre locations.
Noise/Disturbance
Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute towards
a significant increase in pollution to the air (including dust pollution), water or soil, or by reason of
noise, odour, artificial light or vibration, will not be permitted unless they include mitigation
measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development.
Neighbouring residents have expressed concerns over the noise and disturbance as a result of
general comings and goings connected with the operation of the premises as a restaurant.
Whilst there might be some disturbance from noise generated within the restaurant from music and
conversation, the closest residential properties (Abbeyfield House and 7 Longley Road) are 30m
away. In addition, there are a number of other premises which operate during the evenings
including a hot-food take-away next door (which has opening hours conditioned to 11PM) and a
restaurant at 10 Bridgewater Road , which has hours conditioned to 10.30PM Thursdays-Sundays
and 11PM – Fridays and Saturdays.
There are no self-contained residential units above the subject property or above adjacent
properties which would be affected by the proposed development.
4
The hours have been reduced from those originally proposed, with the latest opening time being
midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. The outdoor area originally proposed has also been removed
from the scheme.
In view of the above, it is considered that any noise and disturbance effects created through the use
of the premises as a restaurant would unlikely to be above or beyond those effects present in the
existing environment.
It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with policies S4 - Amusement Centres,
Restaurants and Cafes, Drinking Establishments and Hot Food Takeaways and EN17 – Pollution
Control.
Waste/Odour
There is a small service yard area to the rear of the existing premises, which will function for the
storage of waste, bins and deliveries. A condition will be recommended regarding the details of bin
storage for the property.
The property is separated from commercial properties to the rear (on Memorial Road/Walter Street)
by a service yard/service alley. There is already a flue attached to the rear of the adjacent take-away
at no.13.
The applicant has submitted details of the flue to be installed to the rear of the property. A condition
will be recommended to control the finished appearance and technical specification of such
equipment. Subject to the above GMGU consider the proposed flue to be acceptable.
Overall, in view of the above, it is considered that provided that suitable details are submitted for
the extraction equipment, that the proposed equipment would not cause significant problems of
noise or disturbance for adjacent occupiers, or would have a significant impact on the visual
amenities of the locality.It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with policies S4 Amusement Centres, Restaurants and Cafes, Drinking Establishments and Hot Food Takeaways
and EN17 – Pollution Control.
Visual Amenities
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings.
Policy DES7 states that all new development, and alterations and extensions to existing buildings,
will be required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space,
sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect, and layout. Development will not be permitted where it would
have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
The main external changes to the property involve the use of security shutters to the front door, and
the installation of window grilles.
The security shutters proposed will be perforated and will be mounted behind the fascia of the
existing shopfront, it is considered that this shutter is acceptable. A condition will be recommended
relating to the colouring of the proposed shutter.
5
The scheme has been altered in that railings/grilles will be installed to the ground floor windows of
the property. Whilst the principle of railings to the windows is acceptable, it is considered that
because the premises is close to residential properties that the type and colour of the railings need to
be of a high quality. The applicant has agreed to this and further details of the railings will be
submitted in accordance with a condition to be attached.
It is not considered that any other elements of the proposal will have a significant impact on the
visual amenities of the locality. In view of this, it is considered that the proposal will be consistent
with policy DES1 - respecting context and DES7 – Amenities of Users and Neighbours.
Crime and Disorder
Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage
crime, anti social behaviour and fear of crime, and support personal and property security.
The ALO has commented that internal shutters should be used, but if this would not be possible,
that the shutter should be integrated into the fabric of the building.
It was initially proposed to use perforated shutters to the ground floor windows, but the scheme has
since been revised to include the use of railing/grilles to the ground floor windows. It is still
proposed to use a perforated shutter to the doorway.
In light of the GMP’s comments, it is considered that the use of railings will provide the best
balance of providing security to the property whilst allowing natural surveillance from inside the
premises. The shutters to the doorway will be incorporated in to fabric of the building, it is therefore
considered that the combination of shutters and grilles is acceptable.
It is not considered that the granting of this permission would encourage crime, anti social
behaviour or fear of crime, or would lead to a reduction in property or personal security. The
presence of a restaurant in this location is consistent with the range of uses anticipated within town
centres.
The proposal will bring a vacant unit back into use and the property will have an active frontage and
is likely to encourage surveillance of Bridgewater Road and surrounds. Issues raised by residents
regarding exterior drinking and drink related crime within the area are issues for licensing and as
such are not covered within this application.
It is considered that the proposal is consistent with Policy DES10 – Design and Crime
Car Parking and Access
Policy A2 requires development to make adequate provision for safe and convenient access by the
disabled, other people with limited or impaired mobility, pedestrians and cyclists.
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s standards.
A disabled ramp access is provided as part of the proposed scheme. The proposed ramp is 1:15, but
due to its short length, will be compliant with Part M of the Building Regulations. The rampways
would be short and provide a rest area at the half-way point. It is therefore considered that the ramp
access to the property is sufficient.
6
The disabled access ramp will be located within the private forecourt area, to the front of the
premises which does not form part of the adopted highway. The next door property (no.13) has its
area of private forecourt already enclosed. Sufficient pavement width will be retained outside the
application site, and it is not considered in view of this that the installation of the ramp would lead
any health and safety issues. An informative will be recommended to advise that there should be no
works extending over the highway.
There is no car parking provision at this site for use by staff/visitors to the proposed restaurant.
Parking is restricted within the immediate vicinity of the proposed restaurant. Concerns have been
expressed by neighbours over the intensification of parking problems in the area.
Although the existing property is currently vacant, the previous use of the premises as offices /
estate agents offices would have generated parking demand within the daytime hours. I am satisfied
that that this proposal would not generate significantly greater demand for parking. In addition, the
property is located within close proximity to both public transportation, and to the car parks of
Walkden Centre (to the north), visitors to the property would therefore have a choice of transport
modes.
In view of this, it is considered that the proposal will be consistent with policy A2 - Cyclists,
Pedestrians and the Disabled and A10– Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
Other Issues
With regards to residents’ opinions that there are too many restaurants/food premises within
Walkden, whilst I acknowledge the presence of numerous restaurants and take-aways within
Walkden, I am of the opinion that the introduction of this development would not have an
unacceptable adverse impact upon the vitality and viability of the main retail centre, nor would lead
to an over-concentration of such uses in the area.
Problems regarding pest control and vermin are dealt with under separate legislation.
The applicant has stated in the design and access statement that cycle security bars are to be
provided as part of the scheme, but no plans have been provided to show these bars. There is ample
space within the front forecourt of the property to provide such a facility. A condition will be
attached to require full details of these bars to be provided.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the conversion of the premises to a restaurant is consistent
with the character of the area, and it is not considered that the use of the premises as a restaurant
will have any significant effect on neighbouring occupiers. It is considered that the proposal is
compliant with the policies S4, DES1, DES7, DES10, A2, A10 and EN17 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan, and that there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding.
I therefore recommend that the application be approved
7
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. The use hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 11.00am to 11.30pm
Sunday to Thursday and 11.00am to midnight Fridays and Saturdays.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development, detailed plans and specifications of the air
extraction equipment, including measures to alleviate noise, vibration, fumes and odours (and
incorporating active carbon filters, silencers and anti vibration mountings where necessary),
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The air
extraction system shall be installed before the use of the premises as a restaurant commences
and shall be retained operational thereafter in accordance with the approved specifications.
4. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of bin
stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such
approved bin stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before the
development is brought into use.
5. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, before development commences,
full details of the shutters and window railings, including colour treatment shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved shutters and window
railings shall be installed within 30 days of commencement of the development, unless
otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the cycle security bars shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved bars shall
be installed within 30 days of the date of the commencement of the development and shall be
retained for use thereafter
7. The filaments of the proposed down lighting hereby granted consent shall NOT be directly
visible to users of the public highway. The lighting shall be designed to provide a standard
maintained illumination of 20 LUX maximum.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R005B
3. Standard Reason R005B
4. Standard Reason R005B
5. Standard Reason R004B
6. Standard Reason R019
8
7. Standard Reason R026B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Please note that no part of this permission constitutes consent for the use of the private
forecourt area of the premises as an outdoor eating/drinking area.
2. Please note that the permission relates to the Revised Plan reference PL01A date stamped
23/11/07 and 3 additional plans showing the proposed flue comprising; 1 A4 Plan date stamped
05/12/07 entitled 'Rear Elevation' and 2 A4 Plans date stamped 07/12/07 entitled 'Side
Elevation' and 'First Floor Elevation'.
3. Please note that no part of the access ramp proposed to the front of the property within the
unadopted frontage should encroach on the adopted highway.
APPLICATION No:
07/55475/FUL
APPLICANT:
St Andrews C Of E Primary School (FAO M Platt)
LOCATION:
St Andrews C Of E Primary School Vicars Hall Lane Worsley
M28 1HS
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.4m high weldmesh security fencing/gates and
2.4m high crusader fencing
WARD:
Boothstown And Ellenbrook
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
The application relates to St Andrews Primary School in Worsley. The school is surrounded by
residential properties and the existing fencing around the perimeter of the school varies in height
and type.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The proposal is to erect new fencing around the school, excluding the old school building at the
north of the site. The majority of the fencing will be 2.4m high weldmesh security fencing around
the school in the colour green. 385 linear metre in total is proposed and will incorporate 4 no 1.5m
wide single pedestrian gates and 1 no 4m wide vehicular access gate for delivery and emergency
services. These proposed gates will replace the existing gates on the site.
There is a small section of Heras CRUSADER railing fence and vehicular access gate proposed
between the gable of the original school building and one of the school outbuildings. This section
will be 9 linear metres and 2.4m high and would be black.
9
PUBLICITY
The following neighbours have been notified:
11,13,14,15,17,19,21,23,25,27,29,31,33,35,37,39,41,43,45,47,49,51,53,55,57,59,61,63,65,67,69
Vicars Hall Lane, Worsley,
44,46,48,50,52,54,56,58 Sandringham Road, Worsley
57 Leigh Road, Worsley
115,120,122,124,126,128,130 Boothshall Way, Worsley
55 Leigh Road, Worsley
2A,2B,2,4,6,8,10,12,12A,16,18,20,22,24 Vicars Hall Lane, Worsley
34,36,38,40,42,44, Vicars Hall Lane, Worsley,
NEIGHBOUR REPRESENTATIONS
4 letters of objection on the following grounds have been received:
What would be the purpose of a 2.4m fence around the field? It will only be an eyesore.
Object if there is any intention to remove any hedgerows around the school field.
Object against the height – 5 to 6 foot would be adequate.
Only green colour fencing will be acceptable.
The fencing will look unsightly in contrast to the surrounding area/ out of keeping
Reduce the value of our properties.
The real problem is that the existing gates are not closed and locked after school hours
allowing people to access the school and cause damage.
Will have a negative impact on the outlook from dwellings.
Fencing is over the top.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Site allocation: None
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
Design & Crime SPD adopted June 2006
APPRAISAL OF PROPOSAL
The main issues in relation to this proposal are whether the fencing would have an unacceptable
impact on the amenity of the area and the amenity of neighbouring residents, whether the proposed
fencing would enhance security at the school, and whether there would be an impact on existing
trees on the site.
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
10
The proposed weldmesh fencing will be permeable and would be green coloured. It would replace
the existing fencing around the school and the height of the fencing has been reduced from 3m as
originally proposed to 2.4m as a result of my concerns regarding its visual impact. The fence will be
most prominent when viewed from Boothshall Way. The proposed fencing along Boothshall Way
will be approximately 100 linear metre and will be facing the back gardens of the more modern
dwellings in the neighbourhood. The hedge along this boundary will remain and will only be
trimmed to erect the fence. The option of setting the fence behind this hedge has been considered,
but is not viable because it is the requirement of the Local Education Authority to maintain the
school boundary. The north, south and west sections of fencing will not be prominent because it
will be set back from any road frontages.
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.
As mentioned above, the section of fence along Boothshall Way will be facing the back gardens of
the properties on Sandringham Road to the east of the site. Also, there is a 6-foot high boundary
fence along the back of these properties that will screen the proposed development from these
properties.
The northern section of fencing will be set back from the frontages along No 12A to No 2A Vicars
Hall Lane and will be more than 30m away from these properties. Therefore I consider the
proposed fencing will not have an unacceptable impact on the outlook from these properties,
including 3 of the objectors to the proposal.
The proposed western section will be more than 15m away from the rear elevations of No 11 to No
43 Vicars Hall Lane. It is likely to be screened by the boundary treatment of these properties as
well.
I consider the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of future users or
neighbours and is in accordance with Policy DES7 of the UDP.
Policy DES10 seeks to encourage the inclusion of design measures which reduce criminal activity.
This is supplemented by Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’ which provides
detailed guidance on designing out crime for new developments.
The main purpose of this development is to improve the security because there have been a high
number of reported crime incidents (19) at the school during the last year and the current fencing is
considered insufficient to prevent such incidences. The proposed fencing complies with advice
from the GMP architectural liaison unit to improve site security.
A tree survey has been carried out to assess the tree works necessary to enable the development and
to outline measures to protect the trees and hedge affected by the development. It is proposed to
remove ten trees in total and to replace these trees with trees to be agreed by the LPA.
It is proposed to remove 3 young trees in line with the southern section of the proposed fence
located in the middle of the school ground. These are trees no 051 (Hawthorne), 053 (Birch), and
054 (Birch) varying from 2.5m to 4m in height and not prominent when viewed from outside the
school grounds.
11
Three trees will be removed along the western boundary of the site, namely No 011 (Elder), No 16
(not specified), and No 020 (Sycamore). The elder is an early-mature tree but is considered to be of
low retention value with deadwood and multiple stems. Tree 016 and the sycamore are both young
trees in contact with the current fence with a reasonable retention value.
Four trees are to be removed along the northern section of the proposed fencing. They are all young
trees set back from the school boundary and vary from 3.5m to 5m in height. No 036 is an Elder tree
that is in contact with the fencing and with multiple stems and is considered to be of low retention
value. Tree No’s 038, 039, 040 are all Ash tree saplings considered to be of reasonable retention
value but the are already in contact with the fencing.
None of the trees to be removed are currently prominent along the street scene and all apart from
one are young trees that could reasonably be replaced, as is the intention of the applicant. Also, 5 of
the trees to be removed are considered to have poor retention value.
Some pruning of other trees and the hedge are also required. Pruning will be to solely to the
elevation of each individual tree which would pose a conflict with the proposed fence.
I consider the tree works to be necessary to facilitate the development and am satisfied that it has
been limited to have the minimum impact on the trees on the site and visual amenity of the area. In
addition, replacement planting is proposed for all the trees to be removed.
Conclusion:
The high number of crime incidents at the school indicates that there is a perceived need for the
development. I consider the development to be acceptable in design and colour and unlikely to have
any significant negative impact on neighbouring residents. The development is in accordance with
the UDP policies above and there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. The weldmesh fence and heras Crusader fence hereby approved shall be colour treated with the
approved colour Moss Green RAL 6005 and black RAL 9005 respectively; prior to installation
and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
3. No trees (other than those clearly shown to be so affected in the Tree Survey carried out by
Arbtech Consulting, dated 27 September 2007) shall be topped, lopped or cut down without the
prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The trees to be removed shall be
replaced within 12 months of removal in accordance with details which shall have been
submitted to and approved in writing beforehand by the Local Planning Authority.
4. Standard Condition C15
5. The tree work hereby granted consent shall be carried out in accordance with the
recommendations of the Tree Survey carried out by Arbtech Consulting, dated 27 September
12
2007, and following British Standard B.S. No. 5837:2005 (Trees in relation to construction Recommendations).
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
3. Standard Reason R004B
4. Standard Reason R004B
5. Standard Reason R009
APPLICATION No:
07/55619/FUL
APPLICANT:
Safestore
LOCATION:
Units 1/2 Hazelhurst Road Worsley M28 2SQ
PROPOSAL:
Continued use a a warehouse with variation to condition 2
(Hours of Use) on planning permission 01/42481/COU)
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to Safe Store warehousing unit located on Hazelhurst Road. This
warehousing unit is bounded on the north by the East Lancashire Road with residential properties
located to the West and South of the site. The surrounding residential roads include Partington
Street and Cross Street which are located to the east of the site, Hazelhurst Road to the south. The
surrounding residential units are all terraced properties with the only exception being 103
Hazelhurst Road.
The store itself is separated from Hazelhurst Road by the onsite carpark. However, as the
warehouse is set at an acute angle in relation to Hazelhurst Road, the distance between the site and
the surrounding residential properties varies accordingly. In this instance the distance between the
warehouse and Hazelhurst Road varies between 30m from the entrance, to a minimum of 18m from
the corner of the unit to the main road. The unit is also in close proximity to those properties located
on Cross Street, in particular No.10 whose gable elevation and rear garden run directly adjacent to
the site. Furthermore, there are a number of what appear to be rear gardens belonging to No.s12 to
34 Partington Street, which bound the western boundary of the site.
13
The only access and egress point available to the site is that which fronts Hazelhurst Road directly
opposite the entrance to Aldersgate Court and opposite No.1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 Hazelhurst. These
properties do not benefit from having front gardens.
The proposal relates to the variation of a condition attached to planning permission 01/42481/COU.
The current condition states that; ‘The use hereby permitted shall only be operated between the
hours of 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 3pm on Saturdays’. The intention is to vary
this condition so that the extended hours of operation would include 9am to 6.00pm on Saturdays
and 10am to 6pm on Sundays.
SITE HISTORY
The original application was approved with conditions for the use of this warehouse as a storage
facility (B8) under application number 01/42481/COU. There have also been a number of
advertisement consents applied for. These are listed as follows;
01/42954/ADV, Display of one internally illuminated free standing sign and building
signage illuminated by floodlights
04/47945/ADV, Display of 2 internally illuminated totem signs, various internally
illuminated flexface boxes, various externally illuminated fascia panels and various
non-illuminated signs
05/50472/ADV, Display of internally and externally illuminated fascia signs and free
standing signs
95/33692/ADV, Retention of externally illuminated free standing sign, one externally
illuminated fascia sign and one non illuminated fascia sign
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – no objections raised
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified;
101 Moorside Road, Swinton
103 Moorside Road, Swinton
105 Moorside Road, Swinton
107 Moorside Road, Swinton
1 Hazelhurst Road, Worsley
3 Hazelhurst Road, Worsley
5 Hazelhurst Road, Worsley
6 Hazelhurst Road, Worsley
7 Hazelhurst Road, Worsley
8 Hazelhurst Road, Worsley
9 Hazelhurst Road, Worsley
11 Hazelhurst Road, Worsley
Flat1, Aldergate Court, Chapel Road, Swinton
Flat2, Aldergate Court, Chapel Road, Swinton
Flat3, Aldergate Court, Chapel Road, Swinton
Flat4, Aldergate Court, Chapel Road, Swinton
2 Cross Street, Worsley
4Cross Street, Worsley
14
6 Cross Street, Worsley
8 Cross Street, Worsley
10 Cross Street, Worsley
18 East Lancashire Road, Worsley
Moorside Independent Methodist Church, Hazelhurst Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objection, two of which are from the same correspondent, regarding this
application. The concerns raised regarding this application include;
1
2
This being a residential area, the creation of additional noise pollution would be
unacceptable to the nearby residential dwellings.
There would be an increase in traffic to the site, which would be unacceptable in a
residential area.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Site specific policies: None
Site allocation: None
Other policies: EN17 – Pollution Control
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application relate to the impact on residential amenity and
whether there would be an increase in noise and traffic generation from the extended opening
hours.
AMENITY
Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute towards
a significant increase in pollution to the air (including dust pollution), water or soil, or by reason of
noise, odour, artificial light or vibration, will not be permitted unless they include mitigation
measures commensurate with the scale of impact of the development. Potential releases of
pollution must be capable of being adequately regulated by the relevant pollution control authority
under the pollution control framework.
When assessing such proposals particular regard will be had to the proximity of the development
and its effect upon environmentally sensitive uses, buildings, features, areas and considerations
such as:
i. Housing;
ii. Schools, hospitals, nursing homes or similar institutions;
iii. Areas of open space used frequently for recreation purposes;
iv. Industrial processes and utilities infrastructure that require specific operating conditions;
v. The landscape;
vi. The quality of soil, air, and ground and surface waters;
vii. Nature conservation;
viii. Agricultural land quality;
ix. Water supply; and
15
x. Archaeological designations.
Consideration will also be given to:
a. The cumulative effect of pollution, having regard to the effects of existing sources of pollution;
and
b. Any balancing benefits of the development.
In areas where existing levels of pollution exceed local or national standards, planning permission
will be granted for environmentally sensitive developments only where the development
incorporates adequate measures to ensure that there is no unacceptable risk or nuisance to
occupiers, and that they are provided with an appropriate and satisfactory level of amenity.
The applicant states that as this variation of condition will only relate to weekend opening times,
the traffic generated will mainly consist of private cars rather than vans or goods vehicles as the
applicant considers that the majority of visitors to the site at weekends will be householders.
Using the data collected by the applicant over the period of the 30th February to 30 July 2007, the
applicant states that there were, on average, 46.6 weekly visits to this storage facility. This
accordingly equates to 9.3 visits on a daily basis, which generates an overall traffic movement of
18.6 separate visits to the site per day.
The variation of the condition in this instance seeks to extend opening times on the Saturday to 8am
until 6pm. This increase corresponds to the normal opening hours associated with the current week
day business, and taking into account the fact that there have been no objections on noise grounds
from GMGU I am satisfied that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact, in terms of
noise generation, upon the current levels of amenity afforded to nearby residents. As such, and in
accordance to the advice given by GMGU, it is considered that there will not be an unacceptable
impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring residents, in terms of noise associated with the
extended opening times proposed by this application, in accordance with EN17 of the Unitary
Development Plan.
The application also seeks to extend the current business hours to include Sundays. In this instance
the hours proposed will be 10am to 4pm Sundays only. As stated above, the current operations do
not generate excessive amounts of traffic to this site and there is no reason to believe that the
average amount of traffic associated with this operation would be unacceptable in this location on a
Sunday.
The applicant further states that the primary activity associated with the site, i.e. the moving and
carrying of goods, and therefore the activity that generates the most noise pollution, occurs within
the warehouse. The onsite activity includes the moving of storage units around the internal aspect
of the warehouse and may also include the use of forklift trucks. It is accepted that these activities
will generate noise, however, such activities occur within a closed environment and not out within
the forecourt. As such, the noise can be contained within the fabric of the building significantly
reducing the potential for noise pollution in the area.
Finally, it should be noted that the application site is directly adjacent to the busy East Lancashire
Road, the traffic on which in itself generates large amounts of noise. This being the case, it is
considered that local residents already experience large amounts of noise pollution during both the
day and night and that any increase in hours of operation granted would have a minimal effect
when considered against the backdrop of this already noisy area.
16
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I am satisfied that any increase in traffic and noise would not have an unacceptable
impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents. This modest increase in on site activity will
occur primarily within the warehouse itself, and the amount of traffic generated by these activities
would not be excessive, given the current character of the surrounding area. There will also be a
condition attached to this permission that will seek to ensure that there shall be no external storage
on the site. This again will limit any noise generated by activities associated with this use. This
proposal is therefore in accordance with policy EN7 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and
there are no other material considerations that outweigh this finding.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The use hereby permitted shall only be be operated between the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday
to Saturday and 10am to 4pm on Sundays
2. There shall be no external storage of equipment, refuse or machinery on the site at any time.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R005B
2. 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
APPLICATION No:
07/55686/REM
17
APPLICANT:
Pinetree Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
Former Weaste Quarry Eccles New Road Salford
PROPOSAL:
Details of the layout, scale, external appearance in respect of the
erection of three part six/part seven storey buildings comprising
262 apartments with undercroft car parking together with
associated landscaping and construction of new pedestrian
accesses (Resubmission of 07/55160/REM)
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is located on the south side of Eccles New Road (A576) and extends to
approximately 1.45 hectares in size and is roughly L shaped and is part of a large former quarry
(Weaste Quarry) which has been landfilled and is surrounded by security fencing and is vacant and
unused. The site is slightly elevated and slopes downwards towards its southern boundary where
there is a significant change in levels of approximately 10 metres in the form of a steep escarpment,
beyond which lies a five storey office building currently under construction and nearing
completion.
To the east of the site is a Park and Ride facility. Ladywell Station on the Metrolink Light Rapid
Transport (tram) service lies immediately to the front of the application site. The site lies
approximately 500 metres to the east of Eccles town centre which has a range of retail and other
facilities. There are three storey blocks of flats (Canterbury Gardens) to the north of the site, across
Eccles New Road, and further residential development exists along the Eccles New Road corridor.
Immediately to the west lies the West One Retail Park.
This application site benefits from outline consent (04/40852/OUT) for residential development
with all matters except access reserved for subsequent consideration/approval. This extant consent
was subject to conditions including one requiring a scheme detailing sustainable construction
techniques, one requiring 15% affordable housing and a S106 agreement in relation to the provision
of Open Space. This is a reserved matters application seeking consent for details of landscaping,
layout, scale and external appearance in respect of the erection of three part six/part seven storey
buildings comprising 262 apartments with undercroft car parking and construction of new
pedestrian accesses.
The development would comprise of three L shaped blocks.
Blocks A & B
Blocks A and B would sit to the north of the site fronting Eccles New Road, building A turning
towards the park and ride facility to the east and building B turning towards West One to the west.
Both blocks would accommodate 85 apartments and would have maximum dimensions of 50.4
metres wide, 54 metres deep and 18.2 metres high extending to six storey’s in height. The proposed
blocks would be set back 11.5 metres from Eccles New Road creating an area of landscaping. The
buildings would have an entrance core providing pedestrian access both from within the site to the
south and from the Eccles New Road frontage.
18
Block C
Block C would sit to the south of the site would accommodate 92 apartments. This block would
have maximum dimensions of 50.4 metres wide, 54 metres deep and 20.8 metres high ranging in
height from six to seven storey’s.
All blocks incorporate 51 undercroft car parking spaces and 99 outdoor surface car parking spaces
are proposed totalling 252 spaces.
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
04/40852/OUT – Outline application for residential development (262 units) all matters save for
access were reserved. The application was called in for a decision by the Secretary of State because
the proposals may have had important wider implications. Consent was granted on 5th September
2006.
CONSULTATIONS
HSE – Do not advise against the granting of planning permission.
GMGU – are aware that this application was allowed following a call-in Public Inquiry. The
Inquiry decision letter indicates that there is a condition relating to submission of a noise
assessment in respect of this site prior to the construction work. No further condition in respect of
this matter is therefore proposed. The site is within an Air Quality Management Area declared in
2005 on the basis of levels of nitrous oxides. It is noted that the mix of units on this site shows three
bedroom apartments, indicating that sensitive receptors (e.g. children) may be accommodated. In
addition, it is noted that there are 262 new car parking spaces proposed. No air quality assessment
has been submitted in support of the application. Concern is raised that this development may have
an impact on the declared Air Quality Management Area, in that it may increase the area where Air
Quality Objectives are breached and cause sensitive receptors to be exposed to poor air quality. A
condition requiring the submission of an air quality assessment is therefore recommended. If a
condition relating to air quality were considered necessary this should have been attached to the
outline consent which considered principle, it is not reasonable to attach a condition of this nature
to a reserved matters application. A condition relating to contaminated land is recommended. A
contaminated land condition was attached to the outline consent.
GMPTE – This site is very well served by public transport. A pedestrian link between the site and
Ladywell Metrolink stop on Eccles New Road frontage is encouraged. GMPTE would wish to see
the access road to the proposed development adopted prior to the commencement of this
development.
Greater Manchester Archaeology Unit – No comments received to date.
United Utilities – No objection to the proposal provided the site is drained on a separate system,
with only foul drainage connected into the foul sewer.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Require a dedicated access, a robust
access control system and the boundaries should be robust and clearly define and separate private
areas of the estate.
19
Environment Agency – No objection in principle. The developer must be aware that the
Manchester Ship Canal is now classified as a coarse fishery under the EC Freshwater Directive. If
the developer is importing waste to the site for levelling or land raising purposes , this may require
to be registered with the Agency. The applicant should incorporate a landscape scheme composed
of solely native species.
URC – The site lies outside the URC’s Primary Transformation Area. It is considered that the
retention of fencing to the Eccles New Road frontage would result in an excessively defensive
approach to securing the development that would present a hostile visual appearance and risk
increasing the fear of crime. Eccles New Road is an important east-west route into Central Salford
and Salford Quays, and this is a prominent site with an extensive frontage to Eccles New Road and
facing the Ladywell Metrolink stop. It is recommended that the boundary and landscaping
treatment is revised to reflect this. In the event that these revisions are not finalised in advance of
the application being presented to Panel for determination, it is requested that Panel considers the
opportunity for any consent to be suitably conditioned to enable the revised boundary and
landscaping treatment to be reserved for delegated approval by the Panel Chairman at a future date.
Urban Design & Heritage Team – Has no objection to the recommendation for approval. Having
had the opportunity to look at the revised layout and elevations it is considered that a much clearer
resolution has been found for the site. The new entrance cores offer a much better solution to the
street and the elevations meeting the ground creates a more understandable building form. The
only remaining area that remains un-addressed is the surveillance of the route through the blocks. It
is believed that the provision of secondary windows possibly obtained via a condition would be a
completely acceptable route to follow.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 29th November 2007.
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 29th November 2007.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flats 1 -41 Clerks Court, Canterbury Gardens
Flats 1 – 16 Millers Court, Canterbury Gardens
Flats 6 & 7 Monks Court, Canterbury Gardens
Flats 1 – 41 Reeves Court, Canterbury Gardens
Flats 1 – 48 Squires Court, Canterbury Gardens
Units 1a, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9a, 9b, 10, 11, 12, 13a, 13b, 14 West One Retail
Park, West One Way
McDonalds Restaurant, West One Way
REPRESENTATIONS
No letters of objection have been received in response to the application publicity.
Councillor Ainsworth has objected to the proposal, his concerns are outlined below:
Density – local inadequacy of amenity and recreation space. To seek to promote the
development proposed (notwithstanding the acknowledged ground difficulties) in the
absence of adequacy of on site open space risks prejudicing ‘quality of life’ factors for
20
existing residents by ‘over densification’ generating the prospect of remedying greenspace
strategy deficiencies even more remote.
Accessibility / Sustainability – whilst it is acknowledged that the site fronts a metro stop, it
is also acknowledged that the routing of the metro is limited, that the bus routing and
frequency is limited and that the pedestrian travel distance to Eccles Town Centre is well in
excess of the desirable travel distance (400m). This may lead to an excessive dependency
on the neighbouring park and ride.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 - Quality in New Developments
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
ST11: Location of New Development
H1: Provision of New Housing Development
H4: Affordable Housing
H8 - Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
DES1: Respecting Context
DES2: Circulation and Movement
DES3: Design of Public Space
DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9: Landscaping
DES10: Design and Crime
A2: Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A8 - Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
EN17: Pollution Control
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The principle of the proposed development has already been established through the granting of
outline planning permission. The main planning issues relating to this application are therefore:
whether the proposed mix of units is acceptable; whether the size of the dwellings proposed is
acceptable; whether the design and appearance is acceptable; the impact on the amenity of local
residents; and highway safety issues.
Housing Mix
Although the principle of residential development has already been established, consideration
needs to be given as to what is an appropriate mix and size of units on the site.
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing states that local planning authorities should ‘ensure that the
proposed mix of housing on large strategic sites reflects the proportions of households that require
market or affordable housing and achieve a mix of households as well as a mix of tenure and price’.
21
It also identifies one of the key characteristics of a mixed community as a variety of housing
allowing for a mix of different households such as families with children, single person households
and older people.
Policy DP3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy encourages the ‘provision of an appropriate range of
sizes and types of housing to meet the needs of all members of society’.
Policy H1 of the UDP states that all new housing development will be required to contribute
towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area. Policy HOU1 of
Housing Planning Guidance states that within Central Salford, new developments should provide a
broad mix of dwelling types. Apartments should only be the predominant form of provision on
sites in the most accessible locations within Central Salford.
The principle of 262 residential units on the site has been established through the granting of the
outline consent (04/40852/OUT). The application proposes 262 units, this would comprise 30 one
bedroom apartments (11%), 201 two bedroom apartments (77%) and 31 three bedroom apartments
(12%). 100% apartments are proposed. The site is situated in an accessible location within Central
Salford approximately 500 metres to the east of a defined town centre meaning it has good
accessibility to a broad range of services and facilities and the bus station. This coupled with the
sites prominent location on a major road (A57) and the location of the Ladywell tram stop directly
in front of the site with the proposal providing direct pedestrian access to this indicate that 100%
apartment provision would be acceptable in this location. I am therefore satisfied that in this
particular instance a development comprising of 100% apartments is justified. Furthermore, given
that approval has already been granted for 262 units, it is considered that this level of development
could only be achieved by a significant proportion of apartments.
Dwelling Size
Criterion 1 of UDP Policy H1 requires new housing development to contribute towards the
provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size.
Policy HOU2 of Housing Planning Guidance 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 floor space of the apartments. The majority of new apartments should have a typical
floor space of 57 square metres or above. Small dwellings (i.e. studios and one bedroom
apartments) should not predominate.
30 of the 262 apartments representing 12% would have a floor space under 57 square metres (i.e. all
of the one bedroom units) and 232 of the apartments, representing 88% would have a floor space
exceeding 57 square metres. Therefore it is clear that the majority of apartments across the site
have a floorspace exceeding 57 square metres. The proposed dwelling sizes would accord with
standards outlined in Policy HOU2.
Affordable Housing
Policy H4 of the UDP states that where there is a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs the
developer will be required through negotiation to provide an element of affordable housing.
Policy HOU3 of Housing Planning Guidance requires that 20% of the dwellings on residential sites
over 1 hectare or 25 units or more should be in the form of affordable housing.
22
A condition was attached to the outline consent requiring a scheme to be submitted prior to
development showing 15% affordable housing provision. At the time of the Inquiry the Housing
Planning Guidance had not been adopted and therefore 15% was negotiated and agreed by the
Inspector. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with policy H4.
Design and Appearance
Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect the
positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards local identity and
distinctiveness.
Policy DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to maximise the movement of
pedestrians through and around sites and enable safe, direct and convenient access to public
transport facilities.
Policy DES10 seeks to encourage the inclusion of design measures which reduce criminal activity.
This is supplemented by Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’ which provides
detailed guidance on designing out crime for new developments.
The proposed plans illustrate three individual ‘L’ shaped apartment blocks. Blocks A and B would
front Eccles New Road, Block A would turn towards the park and ride site to the east and block B
would turn towards West One to the West. Both blocks would be symmetrical and would extend to
six storey’s in height. Block C ranges in height from six to seven storey’s and is situated towards
the south of the site and faces towards the office units to the south and West One to the west. This
layout clearly delineates between public and private spaces, reducing the opportunities for anti
social behaviour and improving the opportunity for social interaction. Parking is situated at
ground floor level under the buildings and within the site in 4 separate areas of surface parking.
The car parking is therefore screened from the wider public realm (e.g. Eccles New Road frontage)
and the smaller parking areas allow for better security and an increased sense of ownership amongst
users.
The residential elements are situated at first floor and above with the service rooms, parking areas
and refuse storage provided at ground floor level. This is to comply with condition 4 of the outline
consent (04/40852/OUT) which states that ‘there shall be no habitable accommodation at ground
floor level’. The reason for this condition is ‘in the interests of public safety’, which relates to the
heavily contaminated nature of the site which is actively gassing. The design incorporates metal
panelling at ground floor level to satisfactorily screen the car park from view. A condition would
be attached to any planning consent requiring full details of this panelling including the colour to be
submitted for approval. The parking areas to the rear would be constructed of paviors and the
access roads would be constructed using grasscrete, this would soften the impact of the external
parking areas.
The site is situated in a prominent location on Eccles New Road (A57) as you enter and leave
Eccles and thus demands a high quality of design. Indeed paragraph 62 of the Inspectors report for
the outline application states that ‘ the proposals would make a significant contribution to the
regeneration of Eccles and the City as a whole by providing high quality residential apartments.’
Buildings A and B front Eccles New Road providing a strong frontage. Both buildings have
pedestrian access to both Eccles New Road and to the car park to the south, this core would be
glazed having the effect of clearly delineating the entrance. The proposed apartment blocks are
contemporary in style and each block has slight variations in height and depth designed so as to
23
create some visual interest in the street scene. Vertical emphasis has been created through small
variances in height which prevents the buildings from appearing too bulky.
The site would have pedestrian access directly onto the Ladywell tram stop leading to a 12.5 metre
wide pedestrian access between blocks A and B, this would allow for some visual permeability
through the site. Large areas of open space are interspersed throughout the site. One such area for
example extends to a depth of 36 metres and width of 15.5 metres.
The arrangement of the blocks has been designed so as to encourage natural surveillance wherever
possible, however, no windows are proposed in the eastern elevation of block B or the western
elevation of block A where they overlook the pedestrian link between the two buildings. The agent
has agreed to the attachment of a condition requiring the insertion of secondary windows in these
elevations. I am therefore satisfied that the layout of the proposed development has been designed
in such a way as to discourage crime and antisocial behaviour.
The applicants have not submitted samples of the materials to be used for the buildings within the
site. The drawings submitted do however indicate that the buildings would be constructed using a
varied material palette including render, timber boarding, brickwork, glazing, expamet metal panel
system and coloured glazed Juliet balconies which are shown to be green on the plans. Due to the
location of this site on a major gateway into Eccles it is imperative that a high quality finish is
achieved. A condition would be attached to any planning consent requiring samples of materials
including the balconies to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development.
I am satisfied that this will ensure that the materials are of a sufficiently high quality.
It is considered that the proposed apartment blocks have been designed to a high standard.
Although not replicating the style of the buildings in the surrounding streets the contemporary high
quality design of the buildings, will serve to enhance the character of the area and act as a design
standard in the surrounding area. Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development
would have a positive impact upon the visual amenity of the area as the buildings will add value and
quality to the built environment and is fitting for a site prominently located at the entrance to Eccles
from Eccles New Road (A57).
Landscaping
Policy DES9 considers that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and soft
landscaping provision. Landscaping details have been submitted for
consideration and have been considered by Architectural and Landscaping Design Services.
Comments advise that more detail for the tree planting is required, providing the girth size of the
trees in zone D, E and J. Concern is raised over the choice of Populas tremula as most Poplars have
very aggressive root systems and should not be planted near buildings and drains or other services.
Buxas sempervirens is very slow growing and it is recommended that this is increased to 5 No.
plants per linear metre. The information regarding site levels have been given but are not present at
alternative entrance No.5. It would appear this is a 1:6 slope and all paths should be maximum
slope of 1:20 for DDA purposes. These are matters of detail and I have attached a landscaping
condition which will require an amended scheme to be submitted for approval.
The proposed boundary treatment to the north and east would comprise 1.9 metre high railings to be
powder coated in black. To the west and south the existing boundary treatment of a 1.9 metre high
paladin blue coloured fence would remain.
24
The location of the boundary treatment along the Eccles New Road frontage is currently shown at
the northernmost boundary of the site. The applicant has agreed to move the northern boundary so
that it would be flush with the front of the building, this would ensure that the proposal would not
result in an excessively defensive approach to securing the development that would present a
hostile appearance. This would also enable the design of the landscaping and planting to be revised
to present a more positive frontage to Eccles New Road. The absence of accommodation at ground
floor level ensures that the site would remain secure. It is recommended that if the Panel are minded
to approve this application and amended plans have not been received prior to Panel, that decision
is delegated to the Chair to agree the revised boundary treatment to the Eccles New Road frontage.
A condition would be attached to any planning consent ensuring that the fencing be painted. The
proposed fencing would be permeable and powder coated and as such is in accordance with policy
DC16 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’ and is of an
appropriate design and height in this location.
Amenity
Policy DES7 states that new development will not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments. Policy EN17
states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute towards a significant
increase in pollution to the air including by reason of noise will not be permitted.
I have not received any objections from the Greater Manchester Geological Unit in relation to this
proposal or any objections from nearby residents or units.
The council’s separation distances within the site and between the proposed apartment blocks and
surrounding neighbouring properties will be achieved. The site is surrounded by commercial
development to the east (beyond the Park and Ride), south and west. Three storey apartment blocks
sit to the north across Eccles New Road and these would be situated some 63 metres from the front
wall of the proposed buildings. Within the site, habitable room windows would be situated a
minimum of 77 metres apart.
Condition 9 of the outline consent (04/48052/OUT) requires the submission of a scheme for
protecting the proposed noise sensitive development from noise from the surrounding road network
and any other local noise sources. It is considered that this would ensure that any noise mitigation
measures are fully incorporated into the development and would protect the amenity of future and
neighbouring occupiers.
No details have been submitted relating to external lighting and a condition requiring the
submission of an external lighting scheme would therefore be attached to any planning consent.
In light of the above, I do not consider that the proposed development would have an unacceptable
detrimental impact on the amenity of existing or future residents by virtue of overlooking or loss of
privacy and would incorporate sufficient noise mitigation measures, the application therefore
complies with Policies DES7 and EN17.
Highway Safety
Policy A2 states that development proposals will be required to make adequate provision for safe
and convenient access by the disabled, other people with limited or impaired mobility, pedestrians
and cyclists.
25
Policy A10 of the UDP considers that development will be required to make adequate provision for
disabled drives, cyclists and motorcyclists in accordance with the minimum standards set out in
Appendix B of the UDP and should not exceed the maximum car parking standards set out in
Appendix C of the UDP. Residential development with more than 1.5 off-street parking spaces per
dwelling or unit of accommodation is unlikely to be regarded as sustainable.
All blocks incorporate 51 undercroft car parking spaces and 99 outdoor surface car parking spaces
are proposed totalling 252 spaces equating to 96% provision. In light of the Council’s maximum
car parking standards and the need to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, the
site’s close proximity to Ladywell Tram Station, Eccles Town Centre and Eccles New Road (A57)
which is a main road with bus routes I would consider the proposed level of parking to be
acceptable and in accordance with policy A10 of the UDP. I therefore have no objection to the
application on highway grounds.
Appendix B states that where parking is located centrally for flat/apartment developments, at least
5% of the car parking spaces should be disabled persons parking standard compliant. On the basis
of 252 car parking spaces, this equates to 13 spaces and 9 are proposed. A condition would
therefore be attached to any planning consent requiring a revised car parking layout to show 13
disabled car parking spaces. With respect to cycle provision, 1 secure locker should be provided
per 5 dwellings with a minimum of 2 spaces, this equates to 52 and none are shown on the plans. A
condition would therefore be attached to any planning consent requiring full details of the provision
of cycle storage to be submitted.
Contribution
Policy H8 requires adequate provision of formal and informal open space to support housing
development.
The proposed development proposes 30 one bedroom apartments, 201 two bedroom apartments
and 31 three bedroom apartments equating to 787 bed spaces. A section 106 agreement was signed
for the outline consent, this requires the provision of a commuted sum for the provision of open
space and recreation space (based on the number of bed spaces) to meet the requirements of policy
H8. This set a figure of £540 per bed space which would equate to a contribution requirement of
£424,980. I am therefore of the opinion that a satisfactory level of contribution will be achieved in
accordance with the Unitary Development Plan.
VALUE ADDED
Amended plans have been received representing a significant improvement to the external design
bringing the building down to ground level, breaking up the mass and bulk of the blocks and
providing an acceptable level of interest to the facade.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development accords with the relevant policies of the adopted Unitary Development
Plan and of the Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy. The principle of the development and number
of units has already been agreed through the granting of outline consent. It is considered that the
proposed development would not give rise to an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers
26
or would result in an unsatisfactory level of traffic generation. It is considered that the design of the
proposal is acceptable and it is therefore recommended that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition B01B
2. Standard Condition B01D
3. Standard Condition C01Y
4. Standard Condition D02Y
5. The site shall be treated in accordance with a lighting scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The
scheme to be submitted, shall include details of lighting columns or bollards or lighting fixed to
the buildings and details of the luminance levels of such lighting. Once approved such a
scheme shall be carried out prior to the first occupation of any unit hereby approved; and
thereafter shall remain operational.
6. Notwithstanding the details submitted, prior to the commencement of development a revised
parking layout including a minimum of 13 disabled car parking spaces shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved car parking layout
shall be marked out prior to first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved and shall be
available at all times.
7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the location
and design of cycle stores to accommodate 52 cycles within the site shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such storage areas shall be constructed
in accordance with the approved details and shall be made available for use prior to the first
occupation of dwellings hereby approved.
8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the location
and design of refuse and recycling storage areas within the site shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such storage areas shall be constructed
in accordance with the approved details and shall be made available for use prior to the first
occupation of dwellings hereby approved.
9. Notwithstanding the approved plans, the eastern elevation of block B and the western elevation
of block A where they face onto the pedestrian access between the two buildings are not
approved. Revised details of the external appearance of these side elevations to include the
insertion of secondary windows, and any related alterations to floor plans shall be submitted
and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development of blocks A and
B commences. Blocks A and B shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved
revised details.
10. The railings hereby approved shall be painted black prior to their erection on site and shall be
retained as such thereafter.
27
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R002
2. Standard Reason R002
3. Standard Reason R004B
4. Standard Reason R004B
5. In the interest of design and crime in accordance with Policy DES10 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
6. Standard Reason R012B
7. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes in accordance with policy
A10 of the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. In order to encourage waste recycling.
9. In the interest of design and crime in accordance with Policy DES10 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
10. Standard Reason R004B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The development shall be constructed in accordance with drawing numbers: 7197 (PL) 100*;
7197 (PL) 101*; 7197 (PL) 110*; 7197 (PL) 111*; 7197 (PL) 120*; 7197 (PL) 121*; 7197 (PL)
122*; 7197 (PL) 200*; 7197 (PL) 201*; 7197 (PL) 202*; 7197 )PL) 203*; 7197 (PL) 210*;
7197 (PL) 211*; 7197 (PL) 212*; 7197 (PL) 213*; 7197 (PL) 220*; 7197 (PL) 221*; 7197
(PL) 222*; 7197 (PL) 223*; 7197 (PL) 230*; 7197 (PL) 231*; 7197 (PL) 400*; and 7197 (PL)
401* dated 6th December 2007.
APPLICATION No:
07/55323/FUL
APPLICANT:
Shenton Homes
LOCATION:
333 Liverpool Road Eccles M30 8GF
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a four storey building comprising 17 apartments
together with associated landscaping, car parking and access
28
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant site at the junction of Liverpool Road and Eldon Place in Eccles.
The site was formally occupied by the Talk of the North nightclub. The land to the north, east and
west of the site is occupied by a mix of commercial and residential purposes and the land to the
south of the site is used for residential purposes.
It is proposed to erect an L-shaped, part four, part three-storey, apartment block comprising of 17
apartments - twelve with two bedrooms and five with one bedroom. The building would have a
29.5m frontage to Liverpool Road, including a cantilevered section at second and third floor level
that would overhang the footway on Eldon place by 2.8m. The building then turns the corner and
runs along Eldon Place for 22.5m. The section of the building that fronts Liverpool Road would be
four stories in height measuring 13.4m at its highest point, the same as the first 7m of the Eldon
Place elevation. The remainder of the Eldon Place frontage would be three stories in height,
measuring 9.4m in height at its highest point. Vehicular access to the site would be provided via
Eldon Place. A total of 15 car parking spaces would be provided on site, in a rear parking court.
Provision would also be made on site for cycle parking.
SITE HISTORY
An application for the erection of an apartment block comprising of 18 1-bed apartments was
withdrawn in mid 2002 (ref 02/44495)
An application for the erection of a three-storey building comprising of 14 1-bed apartments was
approved in February 2003 (ref 02/45170/FUL).
PUBLICITY
A press notices was published on the 13th of September 2007.
A site notice was posted on the 21st of September 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
9 to 19 (odd) Eldon
4, 8 and 10 Eldon Place (inc flats 1-4)
6 Eldon Place
Apartments 1 to 16 Parkside Court, Parkside Avenue
1 to 11 (odd) Arthur Street
16 to 22 (even) Aldred Street
The presbytery, Aldred Street
2 to 5 Barton Road
321 to 327 Liverpool Road
329-331 Liverpool Road
355 to 361 Liverpool Road
Flat 1 and Flat 2 355-357 Liverpool Road
359 and 361 Liverpool Road
Holy Cross Roman Catholic Church, Liverpool Road
29
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Liverpool Road
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – No objections subject to the attachment of a
condition for a site investigation and a noise assessment.
Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections but has made recommendations regarding
locks, video controls, lighting and glazing
` United Utilities – No objections but advised that the site needs to be drained on a separate
system.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 7 letters of representation in response to this application, including two repeat
objection letters and one from The Park Residents Association. The following issues have been
raised –
The building is too tall
The modern construction proposed is out of keeping with the surrounding area
Insufficient parking is proposed and therefore the proposal would exacerbate parking
problems in the vicinity of the site and as such it would have an adverse impact upon
highway safety in the vicinity of the site.
Loss of light
Increased noise pollution
One letter of support has also been received.
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control
Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport
Planning Poicy Guidance 24: Planning and noise
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other Policies - DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 Quality in New Development
SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
The following policies of the Draft RSS – The North West Plan (March 2006) are considered to be
of relevance:
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
30
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
DES11 – Design Statements
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 - Location of New Development
H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
DEV5 – Planning obligations
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Design and Crime SPD
Planning Obligations SPD
Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (draft)
Housing Planning Guidance
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
Principle
Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land. This is
re-iterated in Draft Policy DP1.
Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city’s housing stock is able to
meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford.
Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and
conversion of existing buildings being the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
The Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing states that in this area, West Salford, the majority of
units within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments. This policy
does however allow for alternative approaches where adequate justification is provided.
Policy HOU2 of Housing Planning Guidance 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 floor space of the apartments, the majority of new apartments should have a typical floor
space of 57 square metres or above.
The proposed development site is a brownfield site and consequently the proposals to redevelop the
site are in accordance with Policy ST11.
With regards to Policy H1 of the adopted UDP and the Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing
this site is deemed to be located in an accessible location. It is on a quality bus corridor and it is
31
located approximately 400m from Patricroft train station. Eccles Transport Interchange is also a
short bus ride away. The site is also well served in terms of local goods and service provision being
within walking distance of the Patricroft Neighbourhood Centre, which is 400m away, and the Peel
Green Neighbourhood Centre, which is located 500m from the site. The site is also just a short bus
ride from Eccles town centre, which is 2.4km away. These attributes in combination with the site’s
location on Liverpool Road on a prominent road junction where it is considered preferable to create
a landmark building that is capable of stimulating wider regeneration benefits for the Liverpool
Road corridor as opposed to utilising the site for traditional family housing means that on balance it
is considered that a development comprising solely of apartments is appropriate in this location,
especially given that 71% of the apartments would have a floor area of 57m2 or above, therefore
demonstrating compliance with HOU2. Three of the one 1-bed units have a floor area of
approximately 33m2 and two would have a floor area of approximately 50m2.
Design
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality
and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal takes
account of the need for good design. A written statement should be submitted which explains the
design concepts and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual
appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context and how the proposal meets the
Council’s design objectives and policies.
The Liverpool Road frontage of the proposed apartment block would be four stories in height and
the elevation fronting onto Eldon Place would be three stories in height. The buildings that run
along the Liverpool Road corridor have varying heights ranging from single storey right up to five
stories. In the vicinity of the site there are two three-storey apartments blocks and opposite the site
to the northeast there is the five storey high Bridgewater Mill. The terraces to the east and west of
the site are a mixture of two and three storeys in height. At the northern end of Eldon Place there are
two storey dwellings. Having regard to the scale of the buildings in the vicinity of the site, the
modern design of the proposed block and the need to create a landmark building on the site which is
capable of stimulating regeneration in the wider area it is considered that the scale and massing of
the block is appropriate.
The proposed building would be of a modern design. It would be constructed using a mixed palette
of materials including brick, render, cladding and weatherboard. The brick elements proposed,
which would form the majority of the building, would match the materials of the buildings in the
immediate area, and the render and cladding contribute to the modern design and distinctiveness of
the proposal, which would add interest to the street scene.
In order to create a focal point at the corner the proposed building includes a section at second and
third floor level that would overhang the footway at the junction of Liverpool Road and Eldon
Place. Further interest is added via the inclusion of full height glazed panels, balconies and series of
external walkways on both the Liverpool Road frontage and the Eldon Place elevation. These
features also provide relief for the elevations.
32
I have attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and
approved prior to the commencement of development to ensure that they accord with those of
surrounding buildings and that they are of a suitably high quality.
With regards to the additional security measures recommended by the Police Architectural Liaison
Officer the applicant has confirmed that they are willing to incorporate such measures. I therefore
recommend that a condition for a crime prevention plan is submitted and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact upon the
visual amenity of the area in accordance with policies DES2 and DES11 of the adopted UDP.
Amenity
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The land to the east of the site is not used for residential purposes nor is the land directly opposite
the site.
The property to the west is used as an A1 retail unit at ground floor with a flat above. The flat has 3
windows in the elevation fronting the application site. One is a secondary living room, the other a
kitchen window and the third a bedroom window. The ground and first floors of the proposed
apartment block would be set 12.8m from the bedroom window and the second and third floor
would be set at least 10m away, increasing to 11m from the bedroom window. Having regard for
the fact that the two sites are separated by Eldon Place it is considered that this level of separation is
sufficient to ensure that the proposed apartment block would not form an overbearing structure
when viewed from the flat. A sunpath study has been provided with the application which
demonstrates that as a result of the orientation of the properties the proposed apartment block
would not overshadow the bedroom at any time in either the summer or the winter months and
consequently it can be concluded that the proposed development would not reduce the level of light
the occupants of the flat currently receive. There are no privacy issues, as the section of the block
the flat windows face does not contain any habitable room windows. The proposal would not
therefore have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of the
flat at 355 to 357 can reasonably expect to enjoy.
The property to the rear of the site, 9 Eldon Place, does not contain any habitable room windows in
the elevation facing the application site. At its closest the block would be set 7m from the boundary
with 9 Eldon Place, increasing to 19.5m at the back of the L. The section of the block that would be
7m away would run adjacent to the blank gable end of 9 Eldon Place and it would only contain
high-level windows to habitable rooms. The section of the block that would contain habitable
rooms and balconies would be set 19.5m away from the boundary with 9 Eldon Place. It is therefore
considered that the proposed block would not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the
residential amenity the occupants of 9 Eldon Place can reasonably expect to enjoy.
The properties at 9 and 11 Arthur Street are also located at the rear of the application site. These
properties have habitable room windows that would front onto the application site. There would be
32m between the rear elevation of the proposed apartment block and the properties at 9 and 11
Arthur Street. This level of separation is considered sufficient to ensure that the privacy of both sets
of occupants would be retained in accordance with Policy DES7 of the adopted UDP.
33
Having regard to the sites location on Liverpool Road, one of the main arterial routes through the
City I do not consider that the introduction of residential premises onto the site would increase the
level of noise pollution neighbouring residents currently experience.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable
adverse impact upon the residential amenity neighbouring residents currently enjoy. As such the
proposal is considered to be in accordance with policy DES7 of the adopted UDP.
Car Parking
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
15 car parking spaces would be provided on site including 2 that are suitable for use by disabled
persons by virtue of their location adjacent to areas of hardstanding. Given the accessibility of the
site via public transport I am satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable. The
proposed car parking and access would be laid out in such a way that I do not have any objections to
the proposed development on highway safety grounds as I do not consider that there would be any
long term issues with the increased vehicular traffic flow to and in the vicinity of the site.
Developer Contributions
UDP Policy H1 requires new housing development to make adequate provision for open space.
UDP Policy H8 states that planning permission will only be granted where adequate and
appropriate provision is made for formal and informal open space and its maintenance over a
twenty-year period. Such provision is required either as part of the development or through an
equivalent financial contribution to fund off-site provision. This policy refers to access to
recreational land and facilities standards set out in UDP Policy R2.
UDP Policy DEV5 states that development that would have an adverse impact on any interests of
acknowledged importance, or would result in a material increase in the need for infrastructure,
services, facilities and/or maintenance, will only be granted planning permission subject to
planning conditions or planning obligations that would ensure adequate mitigation measures are
put in place.
The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document requires major residential
developments of 10 dwellings or more to contribute towards the provision, improvement and
maintenance of open space as well as to improvements to the public realm, infrastructure and
heritage features within the vicinity of application sites. It also states that major developments
should make a contribution towards construction training schemes that improve skills of Salford’s
population and it requires developers on major schemes to introduce/contribute towards projects
aimed at reducing and/or offsetting carbon dioxide emissions.
In order to secure adequate open space provision Policy OB1 of the Planning Obligations SPD
requires a contribution of £658 per bedspace for residential units that comprise of 2 bedrooms or
less. The proposal contains 12 2-bed units and 5 1-bed units. In order satisfy policy OB1 the
developer would need to make a financial contribution of £30,268.
34
Policy OB2 of the Planning Obligations SPD requires a contribution of £1500 per dwelling towards
improvements to the public realm, infrastructure or heritage features within the vicinity of the
application site. In order to satisfy policy OB2 the developer would need to make a financial
contribution of £25,500.
Policy OB3 of the Planning Obligations SPD relates to construction training. It states that major
developments should contribute to the improvement of construction skills amongst Salford
residents. The contribution that should be sought from a new development to feed into schemes that
provide construction training is £150 per dwelling. In order to satisfy policy OB2 the developer
would need to make a financial contribution of £2,550.
Policy OB4 of the Planning Obligations SPD relates to climate change. It states that unless schemes
achieve a very good BREAM or equivalent rating major developments should make a contribution
of £200 per dwelling towards projects aimed at reducing and offsetting carbon dioxide emissions.
In order to satisfy policy OB4 the developer would need to make a financial contribution of £3,400.
The applicant has confirmed that although it will be unlikely that the whole scheme would achieve
an EcoHomes very good rating, a ‘good’ rating would be possible. I have therefore attached a
condition requiring such a rating to be achieved.
Policy OB5 of the Planning Obligations SPD states that developers should pay all reasonable
expenses incurred by the City Council in drawing up and administrating legal agreements. In order
to ensure this happens an additional charge of 2.5% will be added to cover the administrative costs
of ensuring that the commuted sums are directed towards appropriate schemes.
The developer is aware of the level of contributions required and they have agreed to the
attachment of a condition to secure these monies and the 2.5% administration fee.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes
is acceptable. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions 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, improvements to the public realm, schemes to offset climate change and construction
training schemes.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D03Y
35
3. Standard Condition C01Y
4. 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. The developer shall submit a Site Investigation report for the written approval of the
Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution
of land contamination on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to
receptors focusing primarily on risks to human health and the wider environment; and
ii. Proposed Remedial Works if required shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. Where applicable, the Remedial Works shall be incorporated by
the developer during the course of construction, prior to occupation of the development and
iii. A Verification Report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local
Planning Authority. The Verification Report shall validate that all remedial works undertaken
on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a noise assessment shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such assessment shall
consider noise from the surrounding road network and any other local noise sources that are
deemed significant and shall identify attenuation measures to reduce the impact of noise on the
occupiers of the development. The approved attenuation measures, including ventilation
measures, shall be completed prior to first occupation of development hereby approved.
6. Prior to the commencement of development a crime prevention plan shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall outline the measures that
will be implemented in order to overcome the concerns of the Greater Manchester Police
Architectural Liaison Officer as outlined in their memo of the 12th of October 2007. The
approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of any dwelling and
retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
7. Before development commences, a scheme detailing how cycle parking provision will be
provided on site in accordance with the standards set out in Appendix B of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first
occupation of the building hereby approved
8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the location
and design of refuse and recycling storage areas within the site shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such storage areas shall be constructed in
accordance with the approved details and shall be made available for use prior to the first
occupation of the development hereby approved.
9. Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted the 15 car parking spaces shown
in the approved plan (P2412-200 Rev A)) shall be constructed and marked out within the
36
curtilage of the site. The spaces shall be made available for future occupants of the
development hereby approved at all times whilst the premises are in use.
10. 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 Act 1990 has been prepared and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The planning obligation will provide that
commuted sums as required by Policy DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
and the policies contained within the Planning Obligations SPD, will be paid to the Local
Planning Authority for improvements to and maintenance of existing open space provision and
public realm, infrastructure and heritage and training programmes for local construction
workers, and schemes to offset climate change.
11. The development hereby approved shall achieve a 'very good' or 'excellent' Building Research
Methodology Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) rating or equivalent,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. A post-construction
certificate confirming such an outcome 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
3. Standard Reason R004B
4. Standard Reason R024B
5. Standard Reason R024B
6. Standard Reason R024B
7. Standard Reason R004B
8. Standard Reason R004B
9. Standard Reason R026B
10. To ensure that the development hereby approved is sustainable and meets the need for new and
improved facilities and infrastructure it generates. This is in accordance with Policy DEV5 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016 and the provisions of the adopted
Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document
11. In the interests of resource conservation and environmental sustainability pursuant to Policies
ST1 and ST14 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan 2004-2016.
37
Note(s) for Applicant
1. 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.
2. This permission relates to the following plans Ground floor plan and site layout - P2412-200 Rev A
First floor plan - P2412-201 Rev A
Second floor plan - P2412-202 Rev A
Third floor plan - P2414-203 Rev A
Elevations - P2412-401 Rev A and P2414-402 Rev B
Sections - P2412-300 Rev A
APPLICATION No:
07/55350/HH
APPLICANT:
D Lea
LOCATION:
52 Lambton Road Worsley M28 2ST
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a part single/part two storey side extension
WARD:
Worsley
At a meeting of the Panel held on 15th November 2007 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel.
My previous observations are set out below
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached residential property fronting Lambton Road, Worsley.
The applicant’s property is boarded, on all sides, by residential properties. The dominant housing
style within the immediate area is semi-detached.
Permission is sought for the erection of a part single / part two storey side extension. The proposed
extension would sit flush with the front elevation of the original property. It would project
approximately 3m towards 50 Lambton Road, before extending by 8.7m towards the rear of the
property. The height of the proposed extension, to the ridge, would be 1m less than the height of
the original dwelling.
38
SITE HISTORY
There has been one previous application in regards to this site.
Planning permission was granted on 19th October 2004 for the erection of a sun lounge to the side
and rear of the property (application number: 04/48866/HH)
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
50, 54, 61 and 63 Lambton Road, Worsley
33, 37 and 39 Douglas Road, Worsley
REPRESENTATIONS
I have had a request from Cllr Compton that this application be reported to Panel for the following
reasons:
1. The extension would not be 13m from the adjacent property (54 Lambton Road)
2. The extension would result in severe light loss to the living room at no.54
3. The occupant of no.54 is a professional artist who needs the light for his work.
Consequently, the proposed extension may result in a severe loss of income.
I have also received one objection from the occupant(s) of the adjacent property (54 Lambton
Road). The following issues have been raised:
The extension would be overbearing and obtrusive
Loss of light
The primary light source to the living room is received through the two windows that
would directly face the proposed extension. There combined area of glass is two and a half
square feet more than that of the window to the rear elevation.
The two windows mentioned above distribute light equally to both side of the room, where
as the rear window only distributes light to the rear half of the room.
All windows in the house have been in the same position for the last 45 years.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific Policies: None
Other Policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 – Alteration and Extension
A8 – Impact of the Development on the Highway
OTHER LOCAL PLANNING GUIDANCE
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Housing Extensions
39
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; impact
on highway safety and whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the UDP and
the Council’s SPD on House Extensions.
UDP Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context,
respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards local
identity and distinctiveness.
Policy DES8 states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations or extensions to
existing buildings that respect the general scale, character, rhythm, proportions, details and
materials of the original structure and complement the general character of the surrounding area.
Lambton Road mostly consists of semi-detached properties. A number of these properties have
already built similar two storey side extensions. Consequently, it is considered that the
development is in keeping with the immediate area. Furthermore, the applicant has incorporated a
pitched roof, with an overall height of approximately 1m less than the original dwelling. Therefore,
the applicant has both respected the architectural detail of the original property and successfully
proposed an extension that would appear subordinate. It is therefore considered that the extension
has been designed in a way that 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. The application accounts that materials would match the existing dwelling
and a condition would be attached to ensure this. In respect of this, it is considered that the
proposed would comply with policies DES1 and DES8.
Policy HE8 states that planning permission for the erection of a two storey side extension that lies
within 1m of the side boundary will not normally be granted unless either the first floor element is
set back a minimum of 2m from the front main wall, or the ground and first floor elements are both
set back a minimum of 1m from the front wall.
The first floor element of the proposed extension is set back 2m. It is therefore considered that the
proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the street scene, by way of terracing, in
accordance with Policy HE8.
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 front elevation of the proposed extension would incoporate a ground floor garage door and a
first floor bedroom window. The nearest property to the front (taken from the 2m first floor set
back) would maintain a distance of 22m. The rear elevation would incoporate a ground floor
garage window and door and first floor bedroom window. The nearest property to the rear would
40
maintain a distance of approximatly 24.5m. In respect of this, it is considered that no unacceptable
loss of privacy would result to the occupant(s) of the properties to the front or rear, in accordance
with Policy HE1.
Policy HE3 states planning permission will not normally be granted for a two storey or first floor
extension that does not maintain a minimum distance of 13m between its blank gable end wall and
facing ground floor principal windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings.
The side elevation of the proposed extension would be blank. The facing side elevation of 54
Lambton Road includes four ground floor habitable room windows, two of which serve a dining
room at the rear of the property and two of which serve a living room at the front of the property.
The distance that would be maintained between the two elevations would be approximately 3.8m
(previously 6.6m). In this instance, the four habitable room windows are considered to be
secondary. There is a further window on the rear elevation serving the dining room and there is a
further window on the front elevation serving the living room. In both cases, the windows to the
front and rear elevation are larger than any of the side windows, and therefore these two windows
are considered to be the principal sources of light/outlook. Taking into account that it is not
considered necessary to protect light to secondary windows of habitable rooms, it is my opinion
that there would be no unacceptable loss of light / overbearing to the occupant(s) of no.54.
Policy HE4 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for a single storey
extension that does not maintain a minimum distance of 9m between its blank gable end wall and
facing ground floor principal windows of habitable rooms of neighbouring dwellings.
The side elevation of no.54 also includes a first floor bedroom window, there is another window
serving this bedroom on the rear elevation. Again, the window on the rear elevation is the larger of
the two windows. Consequently, it is considered to be the principal light source/outlook. It is
therefore considered that there would be no unacceptable loss of light / overbearing to the
occupant(s) of no.54.
The proposed extension would not be visible from the adjoining property ( 50 Lambton Road). It is
therefore considered that no unacceptable loss of amenity to the occupant(s) of no.50
Policy HE12 states that planning permission will not normally be granted for the erection of a
garage with an up and over garage door unless a hardstanding of 5.5m in length and 3m in width is
maintained between the front of the garage and the highway, unless it can be clearly demonstrated
that there would be no unacceptable impact on highway safety and free flow of traffic.
In this case, the hardstanding at the front of the garage would measure 5m my 2.8m. It is therefore
considered that this would result in an unacceptable effect on highway safety. However, the
applicant has agreed to include a roller shutter door, therefore, it is considered that the proposal
would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, in accordance with Policy HE12.
FURTHER OBSERVATIONS
The occupant of no.54 is a professional artist who needs the light for his work. It has been asserted
that the proposed extension may result in a severe loss of income.
54 Lambton Road is a residential property and it is considered that the proposed development
would not result in an unacceptable loss of light required for the need of such a use.
41
Whilst the neighbours concerns have been taken into account and understood, nevertheless, it is
concluded that it would be unreasonable not to grant planning permission for a legitimate extension
which complies fully with policy, in circumstances where a neighbour may be using his or her
lounge or dining room for work purposes.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on street scene;
highway safety or occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposal is in accordance with
Policies DES1, DES7, DES8 and A8 of the UDP and also the relevant policies of the House
Extensions SPD.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D01C
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R007B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
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"
42
APPLICATION No:
07/55458/FUL
APPLICANT:
PZ Cussons
LOCATION:
Agecroft Commerce Park (Phase 3) Tallyman Way Pendlebury
Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a building to provide manufacturing (B2) and
storage (B8) accommodation with ancillary laboratory facilities
(B1b), office space (B1a) and staff welfare amenities along with
associated car parking, cycle and motorcycle parking, servicing
areas and landscaping
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
The site forms part of Plot 2 on the Agecroft Commerce Park in Pendlebury just off Agecroft Road.
Plot 2 is the new headquarters of PZ Cussons and the development of Plot 2 is staged in 2 phases.
Phase 1 is currently under construction and nearing completion. It comprises a single
manufacturing building with a total floor space of approximately 7,200m², associated car park and
landscaping and gatehouse at the entrance to Plot 2.
Phase 2, the subject of this application, will be located to the west of Phase 1 and will occupy the
remaining area of Plot 2 that covers approximately 1.1ha. Phase 2 will utilise the existing access to
Plot 2 and the boundary fence and treatment for the whole of the Plot has already been granted
planning permission and have been implemented. The site has already been partially remediated
and levelled and new infrastructure including roads, landscaping and services have already been
provided in accordance with the hybrid permission 04/48658/HYBEIA for the wider Agecroft
Commerce Park (Phase III).
Plot 2 is located to the south of Agecroft Park Circle and to the north, south and east of the site there
are other commercial businesses. The land to the west of the site is undeveloped, but has extant
outline permission for the provision of B1(c), B2 and B8 accommodation granted in the hybrid
application above.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
Full planning permission is sought because the proposal includes some ancillary laboratory floor
space. Condition 17 of 04/48658/HYBEIA specifically restricts the B1 use to Class B1(c) (light
industry) and therefore the application cannot be dealt with under Reserved Matters.
The proposal will comprise a two-storey building to the west on Plot 2 that will provide a
perfumery and product development facility, associated structures on the site, service yard, car park
and additional landscaping.
The perfumery will include manufacturing, storage and staff welfare amenities at the ground floor
with ancillary office accommodation at the 1st floor. The gross external floor space for the
perfumery will be 2196m².
43
The product development facility will have a gross external floor space of 1468m² and will be the
heart of the new PZ Cussons headquarters. The ground floor will provide the main reception, a
product demonstration area which will include a fragrance bar, hair salon, bathroom and kitchen
sets and a stability testing facility. There will also be informal meeting pods, a workshop hub,
meeting rooms and a café. Ancillary laboratory space will be provided at the 1st floor.
The total gross external floor space for the proposed building will be 3666m². The main part of the
building will be rectangular 56m x 34m x 11.3m in height with canopies to the north and south. The
‘heart’ building is attached to the eastern elevation of the main building to the same height and will
have approximate dimensions of 42m x 23m.
A total of 121 car parking spaces, including disabled parking, would be provided on Plot 2 to
provide a communal car park for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the PZ Cussons development. 9
disabled parking spaces, 31 cycle parking bays, and 5 motorcycle parking spaces are proposed.
SITE HISTORY
04/48458/HYBEIA – Full application for the retention of the existing site remediation and enabling
works and new site infrastructure including roads, landscaping and services and outline application
for the provision of B1, B2 and B8 accommodation (Phase III) – granted in April 2005.
06/53690/REM – Details of the siting, design, external appearance of an industrial unit (Class B2)
with ancillary office accommodation and staff welfare facilities together with associated
landscaping, car and cycle parking, servicing areas and construction of new and alteration to
existing vehicular access – granted in December 06.
(This application relates to Phase 1 of the PZ Cussons site and is sited adjacent to the proposed
development)
PUBLICITY
A Site Notice was displayed on 17 October 2007.
A Press Notice was displayed on 11 October 07.
The following neighbours have been notified in writing:
No’s 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 Canary Way, Swinton, Manchester, M27 8AW
Units No 1 to 18, Lamplight Way, Swinton, Manchester, M27 8UJ
Securicor Cash Services, Lamplight Way, Swinton, Manchester
NEIGHBOUR REPRESENTATIONS
No objections have been received. The application is being report to Panel due to the amount of
floorspace proposed.
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Greater Manchester Geological Unit:
There has been extensive correspondence between the agent and the GMGU and they have already
submitted a Phase II Geo-Environmental Investigation. A site walk over and further gas monitoring
44
are required and it is therefore recommended that a condition requiring further site investigations to
be undertaken be attached.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer: No objections.
GMPTE:
Seek contribution towards public transport because GMPTE have not been
contacted about the procurement arrangements for the provision of a bus service regarding
the existing S106 on the site.
Environment Agency: No objection in principle but requests the following condition:
No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of the proposed
floor and exterior levels have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The
scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details.
Economic Development: In principle very supportive to the investment, but seeks a S106
Agreement as it is above the threshold for triggering contributions.
GMEU: No comments to date.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Site specific policies: E4/10 – Agecroft Commerce Park, Pendlebury – Site for Offices, Light
Industry, General Industry, Storage and Distribution.
Site allocation: Employment Development
Other policies:
ST3 – Employment Supply
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9 – Landscaping
DES10 – Design and Crime
E4 – Sites for Employment Development
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments
EN16 – Contaminated Land
APPRAISAL OF PROPOSAL
The principle of B1(c), B2, and B8 use has already been established on the site in outline and the
access to the site has also been approved and implemented. The main planning issues to be
considered in this application are the small element of laboratory floor space, design and layout of
the development, proposed landscaping, parking provision and whether the proposal complies with
the relevant provisions of the Adopted UDP.
Principle of development:
Strategic Policy ST3 states a good range of local employment opportunities will be secured by
maintaining an adequate supply and variety of land and enabling the diversification of the local
economy. The site is allocated for office, light industry, general industry, storage and distribution
45
on the UDP Proposals Map (E4/10) and has the benefit of outline planning permission for the uses
mentioned above.
During pre-application discussions it was concluded that the most appropriate way to proceed with
this proposal was to submit a full application, as the outline permission does not allow for research
and development uses.
The main use of the building will be manufacturing (perfumery and product development) with
ancillary storage, office, and laboratory use. All of these uses fall within the site allocation above. I
would therefore consider the principle of development to be acceptable and in accordance with the
above policies.
Design and Layout
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
The proposed building would have a much smaller footprint than the Phase 1 industrial unit nearing
completion on the east of this site. The massing and bulk of the proposed building would be
comparable to existing units on Agecroft Commerce Park. The height, design and materials will be
in keeping with the Phase 1 building already approved. The surrounding commercial units
comprise of a mixture of materials from cladding, brick and glass. The adjacent units to the
immediate south of the site are clad. The submitted materials comprise mainly of silver, grey and
blue cladding with elements of terracotta and white cladding on prominent elevations. The
entrance to the building would be glazed with a glass canopy. No samples of materials have been
provided, but it will be the same as the materials approved for Phase 1 and are deemed appropriate.
I have attached a condition for samples of the external materials of the building to ensure this is the
case.
The most prominent elevation from the adjacent roundabout would be the north elevation with
drum storage canopy and the sprinkler tank. This elevation would have an element of terracotta
tiling. It is proposed raise the existing landscaped banking around the northern boundary of the site
by 1.5m and to extend it further to the west and to incorporate a hedge along this landscape strip.
The resultant banking would be approximately 1.3m above the adjacent ground level of the road.
This will ensure that the proposed building, sprinkler tank, pump house, substation, compound
building and surfaced parking area will be screened from the road and footpath. Only part of the
proposed building and sprinkler tank will still be visible. I would not consider the proposal to have
an unacceptable impact on the street scene. I consider the proposed design and materials to be
appropriate in this location and complementary to the Phase 1 development in accordance with
Policy DES1.
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.
As mentioned before the application site is surrounded by commercial properties and the principle
of an industrial building on this site has already been established through the granting of the outline
consent. I would therefore not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity
of neighbouring occupiers and is in accordance with DES7.
46
Policy DES9 states that landscaping should be of a high quality, reflect the character of the area
and the development, not detract from safety and security and form an integral part of the
development. The boundary treatment and majority of the landscaping for the site was approved in
the reserved matters application for Phase 1. This approved landscaping scheme creates an area of
green around the whole circumference of the site excluding accesses and has been substantially
implemented.
Some landscaping improvements were proposed during pre-application discussions and are
included in the proposed landscaping scheme. These include extending the existing landscaping
bund on the northern boundary towards the west, and some additional planting to screen the smaller
freestanding buildings. The revised scheme also propose hedge planting just inside the boundary
fence. The landscaping and planting proposals are of good quality and will be integral to the
development by emphasising pedestrian and cycle links and screening the outbuildings associated
with the development. The planting scheme has been assessed and the proposed choice of planting
and densities are acceptable in accordance with Policy DES9.
Policy DES10 seeks to encourage the inclusion of design measures which reduce criminal activity.
This is supplemented by Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’ which provides
detailed guidance on designing out crime for new developments.
The 2.3m high weldmesh powder coated boundary fencing has already been approved and
implemented in 06/53690/REM. The fence is powder coated green and is located to the rear of the
landscaping strip around the site. The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer has
been consulted and has no objections to the proposal on crime and design issues in accordance with
DES10.
Car Parking and Travel Plans
Adopted Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers,
cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that
the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
The proposed development and the approved Phase 1 of Plot 2 will function as a single site with a
shared car park and it has been agreed to assess the parking provision for the whole of the site. The
proposed amount of car parking for the whole of Plot 2 is 121 car parking spaces, including 9
disabled spaces. 31 cycle spaces and 5 motorcycle spaces are proposed. The maximum level of car
parking for the whole of the site as set out in the UDP would be 227 car parking spaces. The
minimum number of disabled spaces required in accordance with Appendix B of the UDP would be
6 and the minimum number of cycle and motorcycle spaces would be 19 and 5 respectively. I
would consider this level of parking to be acceptable and in accordance with policy A10 and have
no objections on highway safety grounds.
Policy A1 states that planning applications for developments likely to give rise to significant
transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport assessment
and where appropriate a travel plan.
A traffic assessment was submitted as part of the outline planning permission and it was considered
that that the surrounding road network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase in
traffic, which would be generated as a result of this application without having a detrimental impact
on highway safety. The Travel Plan for Phase 1 have been updated to deal with Phase 1 and 2 of
47
Plot 2 as a whole. A draft travel plan has been submitted with the application. It has subsequently
been amended in accordance with comments received from the Traffic Management team. This
matter is still being discussed and therefore I have attached a condition for the approval of the
Travel Plan.
Other Issues
Policy EN16 states that proposals on sites known or thought to be contaminated will require the
submission of a site assessment as part of the planning application. Remedial measures agreed, as
part of any planning permission will be required to be completed at the start of any development.
These matters still need addressing and consultation with GMGU is ongoing.
The submitted Design and Access statement discusses the use of sustainable building techniques,
heat recovery and the reduction of carbon emissions. These would include energy saving features
such as natural ventilation and intelligent lighting, daylighting and passive control of temperature
change.
The Draft SPD on Sustainable Design and Construction has been developed to ensure that
sustainable design and construction techniques are incorporated into all new major developments.
This includes the measures above for energy savings and the reduction of carbon emissions. The
proposed building will achieve a minimum BREEAM rating of very good, which is considered to
be sustainable in design. A condition to this extent has been attached to ensure the development
achieves a very good BREEAM rating. This will include providing the LPA with evidence about
the sustainable construction techniques; natural ventilation techniques; techniques to reduce solar
heat gain and use of renewable energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability matters
to achieve a very good BREEAM rating.
The laboratory element will be ancillary to the main operation of the building for manufacturing
and product development. It falls within Use Class B1(b) and although this is not specifically
included in the description of the site allocation in the UDP, I consider it to fall within the remit of
the site for industrial development. The floor space for the laboratory will be controlled through
condition to ensure it remains ancillary to the main use of the site.
The Planning Obligations SPD requires applicants proposing commercial developments to make
appropriate contributions towards improvements to the city’s public realm, infrastructure and
heritage, training of local residents in construction skills and off setting of greenhouse gas
emissions. In relation to the latter, as mentioned above a condition has been attached requiring the
proposal to achieve a minimum BREEAM rating of ‘very good’ and I am therefore satisfied that a
financial contribution in this regard is not required. In relation to infrastructure, a S106 agreement
connected to the outline consent requires a contribution of £61,000 towards public transport to be
made. Although this application is a full application rather than a reserved matters application, I
am satisfied that, in infrastructure terms it would have no greater impact than the scheme that was
approved at outline stage. I do not therefore consider that it would be reasonable or necessary to
require such a contribution for this application. Discussions are ongoing with the applicant in
relation to the training of local residents, and further information on this matter will be reported
verbally at the Panel meeting.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development is already established. I
consider the proposed laboratory element, design and layout and landscaping to be acceptable in
48
this location. I am satisfied that the contaminated land issues and necessary remediation can be
controlled through condition. The application accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted
Unitary Development Plan and there are no material considerations, which outweigh this finding. I
therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1.
The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with
the date of this permission.
2.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development hereby
approved, except for site remediation, samples and details of the materials for the external
elevations and roof of the manufacturing building, pump house, sprinkler tank, drum store,
compound with refuse stores, flammable store and substation shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using
the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
3.
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
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
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.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing no development, except site remediation, shall be
commenced unless and until a scheme for achieving a ‘Very Good’ BREEAM design have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved
scheme shall be installed prior to the occupation and shall thereafter be retained and
maintained.
5.
Prior to first occupation the car parking within the site shall be laid out in accordance with
the details shown on drawing no. 06043-PL01.2 and shall be made available at all times
6.
Prior to first occupation the cycle storage shall be constructed in accordance with the
submitted plan Drawing No 06043-PL13 and shall be made available for use at all times.
7.
Within 12 months of commencement of development the site shall be treated in accordance
with the landscape scheme as detailed on the submitted plan Drawing No. 2488/03 and
shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs
49
dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
8.
The laboratory floor space (B1b) hereby approved shall not exceed 700 m², unless
otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
9.
Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the Travel Plan for
Plot 2 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior
to the first occupation of the site. The initiatives contained within the approved plan shall
be implemented and shall be in place prior to the first occupation of the building, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
10.
The rating level (Laeq,T) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the
development, when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the background noise level
(LA90,T) by more than –5dB at any time when measured at the nearest noise sensitive
premises. 'T' is specified as any 1 hour time period between the hours 07.00 to 23.00hrs and
is specified as any 5 minutes time period outside of the specified times.
11.
No development approved by this permission, apart from site remediation, shall be
commenced until details of the proposed floor and exterior levels have been submitted and
approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be constructed and completed
in accordance with the approved details.
Reasons
1.
Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
2.
To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3.
To safeguard the health and safety of future users of the development in accordance with
policy EN16 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4.
In order to provide recycling facilities in accordance with policy EN17 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5.
To ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of vehicles within the curtilage
of the site in accordance with policy A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6.
In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes, in accordance with
Policy A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7.
To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8.
To ensure the main use of the site for office, light industry, general industry, storage and
distribution is retained in accordance with Policy E4 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
50
9.
Reason: In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in
accordance with Policy A1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
10.
To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy DES 7
and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11.
To ensure the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding in accordance with
Policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1.
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.
2.
Please note the planning permission relates to the following plans:
06043-PL01 C
06043-PL01.2
06043-PL02 B
06043-PL03 B
06043-PL04 B
06043-PL07
06043-PL08
06043-PL09
06043-PL10
06043-PL11
06043-PL13
2488/05
2488/03
2488-04
C684/214
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.
APPLICATION No:
07/55461/FUL
APPLICANT:
Seddon Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent 2a Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 12 semi-detached dwellings together with associated
landscaping, car parking and alteration of existing vehicular
and pedestrian accesses
51
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 0.4-hectare site located to the rear of The Sides Medical Centre and 2A
Moorside Road, a two-storey office block. The site is a brownfield site upon which a number of
mature trees are sited, 40 of which are protected as a group under Tree Preservation Order Number
255. Access to the site is via Moorside Road. The site slopes away from north to south by
approximately 2.35m and from east to west by approximately 1.9m.
The site is surrounded by residential properties to the north, south and east and by the medical
centre and the office block to the west.
It is proposed to erect 12 two storey semi-detached dwellings, a series of four dwellings running
west to east and a series of eight running north to south. The existing access road would be extended
in order to allow vehicular access to the proposed units. A total of 18 car parking spaces would be
provided on site.
SITE HISTORY
An application for the erection of a terrace of four town houses and two, two-storey buildings
comprising of four flats and seven garages, together with associated landscaping, car parking was
approved in December 2002 (ref 02/44646/FUL).
An application for the erection of 12 semi-detached dwellings together with associated landscaping
and car parking was refused by Panel in July 2007 on the basis that “The proposed development in
terms of the siting, layout and design of plots 5-12, in particular the closeness and grouping of the
houses in relationship to each other, would result in an over development of the site. As such the
proposal would be detrimental to the visual amenity and the character of the area and living
conditions of the neighbouring residents, contrary to policies DES1 and DES7 of the adopted
UDP”.
Following the refusal of application 06/53857/FUL the developer decided that in order to secure the
site for development they would start to implement planning approval 02/44646/FUL which was
due to expire in December 2007.
PUBLICITY
A press notices was published on the 18th of October 2007.
A site notice was posted on the 19th of October 2007
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
13 to 59 (odd) Ashley Drive
50 Ashley Drive
6 to 12 (even) Moorside Rd
2A Moorside Road
17A, 17B, 19 to 33 (odd) Moorside Road
52
The Sides Medical Centre, Moorside Rd
The Limes, Moorfield Close
1 to 15 (odd) Moorfield Close
42 and 44 Moorfield Close
1A, 3A and 5A Norwood Drive
2 and 4 Norwood Drive
CONSULTATIONS
1. Moorside Road Residents Association – Objects to the proposal for several reasons. The feel
that as the dwellings at plots 1 to 4 do not have hipped roofs they will not respect the character
of the neighbouring dwellings. They have also commented that the garden areas of these
properties would not received much sunlight despite the increased separation It is also felt that
despite the introduction of hipped roofs the maintenance of 4 pairs of semis at plots 5-12 means
that the proposal still represents an over-development of the site. In addition concerns have
been expressed over the felling of trees on site unlawfully and how the trees given permission
to be felled under 02/44646/FUL have been felled without having the trees re-inspected for
bats.
2. Environment Agency – No objections subject to the attachment of a condition for a site
investigation. Acknowledge the bat survey and recommend that the trees are re-surveyed prior
to felling
3. Greater Manchester Geological Unit – No objections subject to the attachment of a condition
for a site investigation.
4. Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections
5. Greater Manchester Ecological Unit – No objections
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 13 letters of representation in response to this application, including the one from
the Moorside Road residents Association. It should be noted that two households have submitted
two separate responses. The following issues have been raised –
Loss of privacy
Loss of light
Over-development
Loss of trees
The design of the dwellings is poor and the proposal does not represent the best design solution
for the site
The dwellings at plots 1 to 4 would appear as a terrace of properties
The garden areas for the dwellings proposed at plots 1 to 4 would be north facing and as such
they would receive limited sunlight
The proposal would increase traffic flow in the vicinity of the site
The land is badly drained and the proposals could result in neighbouring gardens being flooded
The residents of Ashley Drive do not want their rear boundary fences replacing
Devaluation of property
Impact upon wildlife
Loss of view
The development would allow access to the rear of the properties on Ashley Drive, giving
cause to concerns from a security point of view
53
Some of the concerns expressed by neighbours relate to the implementation of planning permission
02/44646/FUL rather than directly to the current application. Such objections can be summarised as
follows –
Removal of trees on site
Loss of wildlife habitats for bats
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICIES
Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control
Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport
Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and noise
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other Policies - DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 Quality in New Development
SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
DES11 – Design Statements
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 - Location of New Development
H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
EN13 – Protected Trees
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Design and Crime SPD
Planning Obligations SPD
Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (draft)
Housing Planning Guidance
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
The following policies of the Draft RSS – The North West Plan (March 2006) are considered to be
of relevance:
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
PLANNING APPRAISAL
54
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; whether the loss of trees is acceptable; and
whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development
Plan. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
Principle
Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land. This is
re-iterated in Draft Policy DP1.
Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city’s housing stock is able to
meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford.
Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and
conversion of existing buildings being the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with greenfield sites last.
The Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing states that in this area, West Salford, the majority of
units within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
The proposed development site is a Brownfield site and consequently the proposals to redevelop
the site are in accordance with Policy ST11.
With regards to Policy H1 of the adopted UDP and the Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing
and the mix of units proposed the development would provide twelve 3 bedroomed semi-detached
houses. The proposed development is therefore in accordance with Policy H1 and the Council’s
Planning Guidance on Housing, as it would make a positive contribution towards the ability of the
city’s housing stock to meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford.
I also consider that the proposed development density of 30 dwellings per hectare to be acceptable
in this location.
Design
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality
and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal takes
account of the need for good design. A written statement should be submitted which explains the
design concepts and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual
appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context and how the proposal meets the
Council’s design objectives and policies.
It is proposed to erect 2 different dwelling types on site, type A and type B. The type A dwellings
would be two storey, semi-detached dwellings with integral garages that would measure 4.9m at the
eaves and 7.2m at the ridge. The proposed type B dwellings would also be semi-detached,
measuring 4.8m to the eaves and 7.5m to the ridge. Both housing types would have hipped roofs.
55
The previous application on the site, 06/53857/FUL, was refused on the basis that “The proposed
development in terms of the siting, layout and design of plots 5-12, in particular the closeness and
grouping of the houses in relationship to each other, would result in an over development of the
site. As such the proposal would be detrimental to the visual amenity and the character of the area
and living conditions of the neighbouring residents, contrary to policies DES1 and DES7 of the
adopted UDP”.
In an attempt to overcome the reason for refusal, and to ensure that the development makes a
positive contribution to the visual amenity of the area by respecting the character of the area within
which it is located the design of the dwellings at plots 5 to 12 has been amended with the gable ends
being replaced with hipped roofs. The level of separation between the dwellings at plots 5 to 12 has
been increased by moving the dwellings northwards slightly. As a result of this move there is now
3.9m between the dwellings at plots 5 and 6 and those at 7 and 8, there is 3.2m between the
dwellings at plots 7 and 8 and those at plots 9 and 10 (previously 1.8m) and there would be 3.2m
between the dwellings and plots 9 and 10 and those at plots 11 and 12 (previously 1.8m).
It is considered that the amendments to the roof design, in combination with the increase in the
space left in between the pairs of semis at plots 5 to 12, that has been achieved by moving the
dwellings northwards, would result in a row of dwellings that more closely resembles those on
Ashley Drive. That road comprises of a series of two storey, semi-detached dwellings with hipped
roofs the majority of which have been extended at the side resulting in an average separation of
3.8m between the pairs of semis at 17 to 31 (odd) Ashley Drive and an average separation of 3m
between those at 39 to 51 (odd) Ashley Drive.
In response to the preferences neighbouring residents and The Moorside Road Residents
Association have expressed for all the dwellings to have hipped roofs the applicant has also
amended the design of house type A, so they too have a hipped roofs. Consequently I am of the
opinion that the proposed development would now harmonise with its surroundings.
The design of the buildings is of an acceptable standard and in accordance with Policy DES11 a
design statement has been submitted with the application.
The proposed materials would consist of brick, UPVC windows and roofing tiles. I have attached a
condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and approved prior to
the commencement of development to ensure that they accord with those of surrounding buildings
and that they are of a suitably high quality.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact upon the
visual amenity of the area in accordance with policies DES1 and DES11 of the adopted UDP.
Amenity Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
At their closest the proposed dwellings at plots 1 to 4 which run east west across the site, along the
northern boundary, would be located 21m from the rear elevations of the properties at 45 to 51
Ashley Drive, at least 33m from the properties themselves. A 3m high (approx) wall marks the
boundary between the properties at 45 to 51 Ashley Drive and the application site. I am therefore of
the opinion that the proposed dwellings at plots 1 to 4 would not have an unacceptable adverse
56
impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of the properties at 45 to 51 Ashley Drive can
reasonably expect to enjoy.
The blank gable end of the property at plot 5 would be located 14m from the common boundary
with the properties at 41 and 43 Ashley Drive. The introduction of this property would not therefore
have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of this property currently enjoy.
The properties at plots 5 to 12 that run north south across the site, along the common boundary with
the properties at 17 to 31 (odd) Ashley Drive would be located at least 25.6m from the rear
elevation of these properties. These properties would therefore be located the same distance from
17 to 31 (odd) Ashley Drive as those dwellings proposed under planning application
06/53857/FUL. In the reason for refusing this application Members felt that the closeness and
grouping of the houses at plots 5 to 12 in relationship to each other would result in the development
having an unacceptable adverse impact upon the living conditions of the neighbouring residents. As
stated previously in order to increase the space between dwellings the design of the dwellings at
plots 5 to 12 has been amended by replacing the gable ends with hipped roofs. The level of
separation between the dwellings at plots 5 to 12 has been increased by moving the dwellings
northwards slightly. As a result of this move there is now 3.9m between the dwellings at plots 5 and
6 and those at 7 and 8, there is 3.2m between the dwellings at plots 7 and 8 and those at plots 9 and
10 (previously 1.8m) and there would be 3.2m between the dwellings and plots 9 and 10 and those
at plots 11 and 12 (previously 1.8m).
The space in between the dwellings now more closely resembles that between the dwellings on
Ashley Drive, the majority of which have had two storey side extensions resulting in an average
gap between pairs in the run from 17 to 37 (odd) Ashley Drive of 3.8m and an average gap of 3m
between the dwellings making up the run from 39 to 51 (odd) Ashley Drive.
It is therefore considered that adequate separation would now be maintained between facing
habitable room windows and adequate separation would be maintained to prevent any significant
overshadowing of garden areas occurring. The proposal would not therefore have an adverse
unacceptable impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of 17 to 31 (odd) Ashley Drive can
reasonably expect to enjoy.
The blank gable end of the property at plot 12 would be located 1.5m from the common boundary
with The Limes. There would be approximately 18m between the blank gable of the proposed
property and the habitable room windows contained within The Limes. Consequently I am of the
opinion that adequate separation would be maintained to ensure that the dwelling at plot 12 would
not form an overbearing structure. This level of separation would also ensure that the occupants of
The Limes do not experience a significant reduction in the level of light received in their habitable
rooms. The proposed dwelling would run alongside an area of open space at The Limes. This area is
however densely populated by trees and consequently already well shaded. As a result I do not have
any concerns over the situation of the dwelling at plot 12 and its relationship with this area of open
space.
The land to the west of the site is not used for residential purposes.
Policy DES7 also requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level
of amenity.
There would be adequate separation within the site to ensure that future occupants of the proposed
dwellings enjoy a satisfactory level of amenity.
57
Each of the proposed dwellings would be provided with a reasonable amount of useable amenity
space in the form of a rear garden.
Car Parking
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
One parking space would be provided for each of the proposed dwellings and there would be 5
visitor spaces. I am satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable. The proposed car
parking and access would be laid out in such a way that I do not have any objections to the proposed
development on highway safety grounds as I do not consider that there would be any long term
issues with the increased vehicular traffic flow to and in the vicinity of the site.
Trees
Policy EN13 of the adopted UDP relates to protected trees. It states that development that will
result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, protected trees will not be permitted.
Some tree felling has already been undertaken on site as the developer has started to implement
planning approval 02/44646/FUL. In total 12 TPO’d trees have been felled. Under planning
approval 02/44646/FUL consent was given to fell 10 of these trees –



hollies – 1285, 1286 and 1287
5 sycamores – 1289, 1295, 1296, 1298 and 1300
horse chestnuts – 1297 and 1299.
Under planning approval 02/44646/FUL there was no requirement for these trees to be survey for
bats/barn owls prior to their removal.
Two additional TPO’d trees were felled by the developer while implementing planning approval
02/44646/FUL – a holly T1284 and a sycamore T1301. The felling of these trees has been
investigated and the matter reported to the Chair of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory
Panel who resolved that as the developer had agreed to replace the trees on a 2 for 1 basis with 2
English Oak and 2 Norway Maple it would not be expedient to take enforcement action against the
felling of these two trees. These trees will be planted as part as of the landscape scheme for the site,
and they will therefore be planted prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings.
The other trees that have been felled were not protected by a Tree Preservation Order and therefore
consent was not required for their removal.
There are currently 48 trees on site, 40 of which are protected as a group under the City of Salford
Tree Preservation Order Number 255.
As a result of the developer beginning to implement planning approval 02/44646/FUL the proposed
development would not result in the felling of any of the trees currently present on site. In the
interests of good arboricultural management it is proposed to carry out some pruning works to the
following trees –
1302 – Horse Chestnut. Crown reduce
58
1304 – Sycamore. Crown reduce
1305 – Sycamore. Crown reduce
1308 – Maple. Crown raise
1315 – Apple. Crown reduce
1302, 1304 and 1305 are protected trees and therefore consent is required to prune these trees. The
Council’s consultant arboriculturist has inspected these trees and he does not have any objections to
the proposed pruning works as they will not have an adverse impact upon the health of the trees.
An arboricultiral method statement has been submitted with the application. This provides details
of the location and specification of the protective fencing that will be erected around the trees
remaining on site in order to protect them during the construction phase. It also gives details of how
works will be undertaken within the root protection areas of the trees remaining on site and it
outlines how the surfaces within the root protection areas will be constructed. The Council’s
consultant arboriculturist has reviewed the method statement and he is satisfied that provided the
development is carried out in accordance with the details of the method statement the proposals will
have no adverse impact upon the trees.
A landscaping scheme has been submitted with the application. The proposals include the
replanting of 26 trees on site including 4 Rowans, 10 Silver Birch, 10 Norway Maples and 2
English Oaks. These would be distributed throughout the site, some on the road frontage and others
in the rear gardens of the proposed dwellings. If the developer chooses to implement this
permission the landscaping scheme will ensure that the 12 TPO’d trees that have been felled in
order that the developer can begin to implement planning approval 02/44646/FUL (10 with
consent, 2 without consent) would be replaced on a 2 for 1 basis in accordance with Council Policy.
Two additional trees would also be planted on site. I have assessed the landscape scheme and I am
satisfied that the proposed details are acceptable and would ensure that the development makes a
positive contribution to the visual amenity of the area.
Planning Obligations
UDP Policy DEV5 states that development that would have an adverse impact on any interests of
acknowledged importance, or would result in a material increase in the need for infrastructure,
services, facilities and/or maintenance, will only be granted planning permission subject to
planning conditions or planning obligations that would ensure adequate mitigation measures are
put in place.
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open
space within housing developments.
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant is aware that a £25,920 contribution towards
the provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity is required.
The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document requires major residential
developments of 10 dwellings or more to also contribute towards improvements to the public
realm, infrastructure and heritage features within the vicinity of application sites. It also states that
major developments should make a contribution towards construction-training schemes that
improve skills of Salford’s population and it requires developers on major schemes to
introduce/contribute towards projects aimed at reducing and/or offsetting carbon dioxide
emissions.
59
With regards to the contributions required under Policies OB2, OB3 and OB4 of the Council’s
Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations towards improvements in the public
realm, construction training schemes and schemes to offset climate change, the proposals to
develop the site have been under consideration since November 2006, before the Planning
Obligations SPD was adopted, and therefore it is not considered reasonable to require such
contributions in this instance.
However, the developer has confirmed that in order to minimise the potentially harmful effects of
the development on the environment, in accordance with polices ST14 and the Council’s draft
supplementary planning document on sustainable design and construction, the development will be
constructed in such a way that it meets a very good rating under the ecohomes/Code for sustainable
homes schemes. I have attached a condition to ensure that this occurs.
Other Issues
With respect to concerns over flooding a scheme showing the drainage for the site and the finished
floor levels of the properties has been submitted with the application. The details have been
reviewed by the drainage engineers who are happy with the proposals. I am therefore satisfied that
the proposal would not result in an increase in flooding.
As a result of the concerns neighbours have expressed regarding the replacement of their boundary
fences the landscaping proposals have been reviewed in order to allow the existing boundary fences
to the rear of 17 to 45 (odd) Ashley Drive to be retained as the developer is now proposing to erect
a 1.8m timber panel fence in front of the rear fences of these properties.
With regards to the concerns expressed over the impact that the proposed development would have
on wildlife as a result of the developers beginning to implement planning approval 02/44646/FUL
the proposals would not result in the removal of any of the trees currently present on site, nor would
it result in the clearance of any shrubbed areas in addition to those that have already been removed.
Consequently, the proposal does not therefore have the potential to remove any sites used by
bats/barn owls for roosting/breeding nor does it have the potential to remove any other wildlife
habitats.
With regards to the concerns expressed over the future security of the properties on Ashley Drive
the Police Architectural Liaison Officer is happy with the proposals from a design and crime
perspective. I do not therefore have any reason to believe that the properties on Ashley Drive will
be anymore susceptible to attack than they are currently, in fact I would say that the natural
surveillance that would be introduced should the proposed development be implemented would
have a positive rather than a negative impact upon the security of residents on Ashley Drive.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes
is acceptable. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding.
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
60
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D03Y
3. 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. The developer shall submit a Site Investigation report for the written approval of the Local
Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of land
contamination on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors
focusing primarily on risks to human health and the wider environment; and
ii. Proposed Remedial Works if required shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Where applicable, the Remedial Works shall be incorporated by the
developer during the course of construction, prior to occupation of the development and
iii. A Verification Report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning
Authority. The Verification Report shall validate that all remedial works undertaken on site
were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
4. Prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved the landscaping scheme
shown in drawing worsley II Rev C and drawing 311/02013 Rev B shall be implemented in
full. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of the initial implementation of the planting
scheme shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
5. The development hereby approved shall achieve a post-construction Eco-Homes rating, or
equivalent, of 'very good', 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.
6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the
recommendations contained within the Bat Survey carried out by Baker Shepherd Gillespie
dated March 2007.
7. Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted the 17 car parking spaces shown
in the approved plan (311/02 Drawing 03 Rev A) shall be constructed and marked out within
the curtilage of the site. The spaces shall be made available for occupants of the development
hereby approved at all times whilst the premises are in use.
8. 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,
61
1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning
Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a
commuted sum as required by policy H8 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP and the Salford
Greenspace Strategy 2006 will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and
recreation space purposes.
9. The drainage for the site and finished floor levels of the properties hereby approved shall be
installed in accordance with the details shown in drawing C13508/200 Rev A.
10. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained within the
Coppice Landscapes Arboricultural Implication Assessment ref AIA/SW/2007 (S4) and the
accompanying Tree Protection Plan (311/02 Drawing 04 Rev B)
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
3. Standard Reason R024B
4. Standard Reason R004B
5. 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.
6. In order to ensure the protection of bats in accordance with Policy EN10 of the City of Salford
UDP.
7. Standard Reason R026B
8. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policy H8 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP.
9. In order to reduce flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the adopted UDP.
10. Standard Reason R010B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. 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.
2. This permission relates to the following drawings -
62
Site plan - 311/02 Drawing 01 Rev B
Site plan no trees - 311/02 Drawing 03 Rev B
Plans and elevations plots 1 and 2 - 311/01 Drawing 10 Rev B
Plans and elevations plots 3 and 4 - 311/01 Drawing 05 Rev C
Plans and elevations plots 5 -12 - 311/02 Drawing 11
Drainage plan - C13508/200 Rev A
Topographical survey - SSL:4295A:200:1:1 Rev B
Arboricultiral Implications Assessment - AIA/SW/2007 (S4)
Tree protection plan - 311/02 Drawing 04 Rev B
Landscape plans - worlsey II Rev C and 311/02 Drawing 13 Rev B
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th December 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/55648/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Environment Directorate
LOCATION:
Parr Fold Park Rutland Road Worsley MANCHESTER
PROPOSAL:
Erection of replacement 2.4m high perimeter mesh fencing
around play area
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the children’s play area within Parr Fold Park, which is located on
Rutland Road in Worsley. The play area is surrounded by parkland, however it should be noted
that the land to the far north, south and west of the play area is occupied by residential
properties.
This application is for the removal of the 1.2m high railings that currently enclose the play area
and the erection of a replacement 2.4m high weldmesh fence, powder coated in green, around
the perimeter of the play area. The proposed fence would include two self-closing doors in
order to allow access. The doors would be locked overnight. The erection of the weldmesh
fencing is being proposed at the request of Greater Manchester Police, The Little Hulton and
Walkden Neighbourhood Management Team, The Lead Member for Environment and local
residents as the play area is currently being used by local youths as a place to hang out,
subjecting neighbouring residents and other users of the park to bouts of antisocial behaviour.
PUBLICITY
The following addresses were notified of the proposal:
2 to 26 (even) Rutland Road
1 to 19 (odd) Broadway
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of representation in response to the publicity. The following issues
have been raised:
1. The play area should be removed from its current location, as this is the only way to
ensure that the nuisance is removed – bottles can still be hurled over the fence and new
seating areas have been installed in close proximity to the fence thereby introducing
viewing points where vandals can be watched
2. The proposed fencing will not be aesthetically pleasing
3. Users of the play area may feel more vulnerable to attack as a result of the high
enclosure
4. Resources would be better spent installing lighting, enclosing other play areas on the
park and upgrading the facilities provided at the skate park.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th December 2007
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are whether the
proposed fencing is of an appropriate design and scale; whether there would be any impact on
the amenity of existing or future residents in the area and whether the development accords
with the relevant policies of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DC16 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on Crime relates to boundary
treatments. It states that boundary treatments should maximise surveillance and should be
designed to a high quality. The reasoned justification for this policy states that boundary
treatments should be visually permeable and where applicable boundary treatments should be
power coated in order to ensure that they make a positive contribution to the visual amenity of
an area.
The proposed weld mesh fencing would be visually permeable and it is to be colour treated in
green in order to minimise the impact its introduction would have on the visual amenity of the
area. The proposed fencing would be set back over 25m from the Parks frontage onto Rutland
Road and therefore the level of visual intrusion that would result is considered to be limited,
particularly when the fence is viewed in the context of the 2.4m high weldmesh fence enclosing
the bowling green and the 2.4m chain link fence surrounding the tennis courts.
Policy DES7 states that development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of
the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The proposed fencing would be located over 35m from the front boundaries of the properties on
Rutland Road and approximately 40m from the rear of the properties on Broadway. It is
considered that this level of separation is sufficient to ensure that the occupants of neighbouring
properties do not experience a reduction in the level of residential amenity they can reasonably
expect to enjoy.
With regards to the concerns expressed that users of the play area would feel more vulnerable
when using it should the proposed fencing be erected I do not consider that this will be the case
as the play area will have two self closing doors to allow easy egress should it be deemed
necessary. Also it should be noted that a survey of play area users was undertaken by the Little
Hulton and Worsley Neighbourhood Management Team between the 28th of August and the 3rd
of September. 77 people were surveyed, all of whom stated that they would still use the play
area if security fencing were installed around the perimeter.
With regards to the comments made by the objector regarding the removal of the play area and
the way Council monies are allocated this application needs to be determined in its current form
with issues regarding Council budget and resources being outside the remit of planning.
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th December 2007
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted UDP
and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that
the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03
2. Standard Condition D06A
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000
2. Standard Reason R004B
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the
Applicant should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their
proposal. Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before
undertaking any operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal
mine shafts and adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works.
Property specific summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and
underground mining activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal
Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848
or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. This permission relates to the following drawings Redline plan 829899
Proposed fencing plan 829899
Fencing details 424 Welded Mesh System
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 20th December 2007
67