REPORT
of
Deputy Strategic Director of Housing and Planning
to the
Planning & Transportation Regulatory Panel
3rd July 2008
Planning Applications and Related Development Control Matters
(Not considered to contain exempt information)
Non-members of the panel are invited to attend the meeting during
consideration of any applications included within the report
in which they have a particular interest.
AMENDMENT REPORT
AMENDMENTS/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO THE PLANNING
TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PLANNING APPLICATIONS AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
MATTERS
PART I (AMENDMENTS)
SECTION 1 : APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2008
3rd July
APPLICATION No:
08/56220/FUL
APPLICANT:
Derwent Holdings
LOCATION:
Ellesmere Shopping Centre Bolton Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of two retail units and introduction of new
service road
WARD:
Walkden North
OBSERVATIONS:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Since writing this report a consultation response from the GMPTE has been received.
They raise no objection to the scheme or the relocation of the bus lay-by on the
Bolton Road.
For clarification the distance of the proposed access to the centre of the existing
pedestrian entrance on Bolton Road is 33m and not 13m as stated in this report.
A condition has also been attached requiring a service yard management plan to be
submitted to approved in writing for the service yards which service the Ellesmere
Centre. The management plan will set out measures to ensure that the service yards
are for service vehicles only as indicated in the applicant’s submission.
The condition states:
Prior to the commencement of development a service yard management scheme shall
be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The
management scheme shall detail measures to restrict car parking within the service
yard areas. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first use of the new
service arrangements and shall be retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the interests and safety of traffic on Bolton Road and Manchester
Road in accordance with policy A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
APPLICATION No:
08/56280/FUL
APPLICANT:
Derwent Holdings Ltd
LOCATION:
Tesco Unit 60 Land Adjoining Ellesmere Centre
Bolton Road/High Street Worsley M28 3BT
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing supermarket and construction
of a new supermarket above new car parking area
together with new atrium, additional retail units and
alterations to car park and access
WARD:
Walkden North
OBSERVATIONS:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Since writing this report the applicant has provided further information on the likely
sustainable measures which would be incorporated into the design and build process.
The measures illustrate how the building could achieve a ‘very good’ BREEAM
rating and include:
“1) Roof Lights – Atrium Roof lights allow natural daylight to illuminate the
space.
2)
High Level glazing to Bolton Road and Car park Elevations overlooking the
sales floor.
3)
Cold Air Retrieval/Heat Exchange will be included within the development.
4)
Rain water harvesting.
5)
Energy – Monitor and target to help control during the construction phase
and optimised during the operational phase of the building.
6)
Selection of materials to reduce the impact on the environment.
7)
Reducing pollution by selection of insulating materials, refrigerants, etc
which have low global warming potential indexes.
8)
Control of waste management during the construction process and
operational phases of the building.
9)
Respect for the ecology of the site during construction and operation of the
building.
10) Reduction in water consumption due to appropriate provision of low
capacity sanitary fittings.”
Obviously until the proposed scheme has been fully designed, the final specification
outlining the above in further detail is currently an ongoing item, this will be
supported by specialist information in due course in accordance with the requirements
of the attached condition.
A response has also been received from the Ramblers Associate who has raised no
objection to the proposal.
An additional letter of objection has also been received which reiterates comments
already received relating to the size of the store and the loss of choice for local
residents. The letter does, however, acknowledge that the refurbishment and rebuild
is over due.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
APPLICATION No:
08/56281/REM
APPLICANT:
Countryside Properties UK Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Facing Trinity House Great Clowes Street
Salford
PROPOSAL:
Details of reserved matters for the siting, design,
external appearance, means of access and landscaping
in relation to the erection of 115 dwellings comprising
76 houses and 39 apartments, laying out of public
open space, public spaces, car parking and ancillary
uses together with associated highway and other
works
WARD:
Broughton
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
08/56281/REM (Page 60)
Details of reserved matters for the siting, design, external appearance, means of access
and landscaping in relation to the erection of 115 dwellings comprising 76 houses and
39 apartments, laying out of public open space, public spaces, car parking and
ancillary uses together with associated highway and other works
Land Facing Trinity House, Great Clowes Street, Salford (known as Phase 3)
08/56283/REM (Page 100)
Details of reserved matters for siting, design, external appearance, and means of
access in relation to the erection of 428 apartments, laying out public open space,
public spaces, car parking and ancillary uses together with associated highway and
other works
Land Fronting Clarence Street (known As Phase 5)
08/56284/REM (Page 104)
Details of reserved matters fro siting, design, external appearance, means of access
and landscaping in relation to the erection of 265 dwellings comprising 181 houses
and 84 apartments, laying out of public open space, public spaces, car parking and
ancillary uses together with associated highway and other works
LOCATION: Land Bounded By Camp Street, Broughton Lane, Lord Treet,
Ascension Road, Lower Broughton Road, Harrison Street, Cumberland Street,
Wheaters Street And Great Clowes Street (Known As Phase 2)
ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit (GMPALU) – Formal
representations have now been made by the GMPALU, who have fundamentally
objected to the proposed development on the following grounds. Given the
importance of this matter in Members consideration of these issues in coming to an
overall balanced planning judgement (as discussed below) each point raised has been
detailed below, with specific comments for each of the proposed phases having been
identified. Members are advised that the applicants have subsequently responded to
each of the points raised. For ease of reference I hereby set out GMP comments and
the applicants response (Italics) on each matter.
GMPALU are concerned that this scheme incorporates many measures,
which have been incorporated into the earlier phases on this
development site, and have manifestly proven to cause problems for
the residents and the police.
The applicant reports that it is not clear to which problems the ALO is referring to
however it is presumed that the reference is to the gates in Phase 1 and the related
access strategy thereof. The applicants accept that mistakes were made but the
submitted proposals for Phases 2, 3 and 5 have amended the way the gates operate,
and a detailed strategy for their operation has been submitted.
GMPALU consider that the scheme as submitted will not achieve
Secured By Design status.
The applicants report that many of the design issues raised have been reconsidered
and revised in response to Comments, as has been detailed in the Panel report. The
applicants report that they remain open and willing to discuss the proposals,
particularly to find specific solutions to address specific problems and would
welcome further discussion with the ALO and others involved in Secured By
Design
GMPALU support the residential development in principal, but express
concern that the redevelopment of Lower Broughton over the short to
medium term should recognise the problems that have been
experienced in the past and ensure the detail of the scheme
incorporates robust measures to minimise crime and disorder. The
Council are requested to condition any approval that new development
should meet the Secured By Design accreditation
The applicants welcome the support for the development. The applicants
consider that the designs embrace all of the principles of SBD and remain
hopeful that, with further detailed work accreditation can be achieved. Given
the circumstances, and comments made below by the ALO, it seems pointless
conditioning any approval in this regard as the ALO has stated there is no
chance that accreditation can be achieved without a fundamental redesign. The
condition would therefore not serve a useful planning purpose. Countryside
Properties are committed to achieving SBD and are in the process of arranging
a meeting with the development officer at SBD (the Northern England
representative) to move forward. This will happen irrespective.
The ‘gated’ strategy in GMPALUs view is excessive and offers
logistical problems currently experienced on the existing completed
phases. The gates are not well managed as failures are not rapidly
repaired and anecdotally, the estate managers are not monitoring
problems associated with ‘tailgating’. The gates will offer a false
sense of security and do little to limit miscreant opportunists accessing
the numerous gated areas and becoming anonymous and legitimate
within the corralled area.
The applicant considers that the gated areas are not excessive and that they
are a proven design solution for Countryside Properties and other developers,
both locally and nationally. It is accepted that the function of the gates and
gated areas have presented some management challenges,however a
combination of good design, installation and management will ensure the
effective operation of the system.
The size of the gated zones are too large for residents to establish a
community structure where neighbours become ‘known’ and strangers
can be challenged.
The applicants do not agree that the gated zones are too large for residents to
establish a community structure. The zones are served by two points of access
and are broken down into smaller clusters of dwelling to promote neighbourly
interaction and supervision. In any event the largest gated zone (aside from
the apartment parking areas) serves around 70-80 dwellings, by comparison a
traditional terraced street might contain around 50-60 dwellings.
GMPALU believe the roads should be shorter in length supporting
fewer properties and incorporate fewer links to other roads, resulting in
a road network offering offenders numerous means of escape.
The applicant reports that the road network has been designed to address the
constraints and aspiration for the regeneration scheme and is a reasonable
compromise between the planning and urban design aspiration for
permeability & connectivity and the SBD aspiration to avoid escape routes for
criminals. It is noted that Highways officers are happy with the proposed road
layouts and have not objected to the scheme.
Research published by Salford University has established that vehicles
parking within curtilage of properties are 16 times safer than parked on
street. Safer Places concurs with this. The research ‘Design Against
Crime’ clearly describes communal parking as unsafe and should be
avoided. We believe the excess parking on-street in this scheme will
exacerbate the existing high level of car crime in the area.
Consequently, GMPALU will require a redesign of many areas to
accommodate incurtilage parking.
The applicants reiterate, as detailed in the Panel report, that the scheme
includes a variety of parking solutions in accordance with planning and urban
design guidance which do provide differing levels of security, however the
scheme as a whole includes a variety of design solutions and complimentary
security measures with the overall result of improving the local environment.
The ‘circus’ link to the site opposite Ascension church is a potential
racing circuit and will encourage misuse and speeding by vehicles.
The applicant reports that the ‘circus’ feature, as it is described, is a positive
design feature included in the scheme to improve the local environment
through variety and diversity of design. The details of the proposals include a
variety of surface finishes to promote natural traffic calming and the area
benefits from extensive natural surveillance.
Road calming measures including raised tables and ‘chicane’ designs
will need to be established on most roads within the dense residential
site.
The applicant reports that road calming measures including raised tables and
chicanes have been incorporated in the scheme, the details of which have been
agreed in principle and will be refined and agreed fully with the highways
authority as part of a Section 38 Agreement.
At the ‘entrance’ or junction to each road properties should be ‘corner
units’ with gable windows also looking onto the street viewing both
roads. Bland gables in many locations create featureless gables and
lack surveillance of the street.
The applicant reports that all ‘corner units’ do incorporate gable windows
looking onto both roads, as detailed in the Panel report. The ALO has
failed to acknowledge and / or respond to the amended plans.
Other comments as follows:PHASE TWO
Pedestrian furniture - Ascension Park - is required where paths meet
roads with appropriate abutment furniture to minimise mis-use by
motor bikes etc.
The applicant reports that pedestrian furniture will be incorporated where
paths meet roads, particularly at Ascension Park.
Lighting to the park must be commensurate with safety but balanced to
minimise light pollution. The park may become the domain of antisocial activists if appropriate lighting and security is not introduced.
The applicant agreed that the approved scheme must be designed to maximise
security and minimise light pollution.
The house types 2DUP 21B have deep recesses likely to encourage
concealment to the detriment of the residents – the recesses should be
omitted.
The house type 2DUP 21B includes a recess / pathway providing secure access to
the rear garden avoiding any need for independent rear access paths. All of these
paths /recesses will include a secure lockable gate at front of the building.
Appropriate access control is required to the car park courtyards –
these will fail unless appropriately addressed. Folding gates should be
replaced with sliding gates.
The car park courtyards will include appropriate access controls. The
applicant reports that their experience suggests that swinging gates operate
more effectively and the scheme has therefore been designed to
accommodate swinging gates.
The undercroft car parks cannot be seen by residents and will be
attacked by car thieves in this location. Appropriate secure measures
are required. The gated strategy will not, in GMPALUs opinion secure
the cars appropriately – the undercroft strategy is not appropriate in
this instance.
The scheme has recently been revised and Phase 2 does not now include any
undercroft parking. The ALO has failed to acknowledge and / or respond to
the amended plans.
There are too many large car park courts – these are too big for
residents to control and manage. Small clusters should be considered.
See above
There is no appropriate pedestrian access control through the parking
courts.
The submitted Gated Access Strategy includes details of pedestrian access to
parking courts
PHASE THREE
There are too many gated access points. As discussed these will
become logistically impossible to maintain. The current completed
phases are not being appropriately controlled. The gated strategy
should be reconsidered as it offers a false sense of security and will be
targeted by criminals.
See above
External walls to the development on the public domain should be
capped with saddleback copings or similar to inhibit persons sitting on
the wall.
External walls are capped with a coping, the specific request for a sadleback
coping has never been raised previously, however the applicant is willing to
discuss this point of detail with the ALO.
All stepped areas should incorporate anti-grinding measures to inhibit
skateboard misuse.
This issue has not been raised previously; however the applicant is willing to
discuss this point of detail with the ALO.
Deep recesses to the entrances of 2DUP 21B units should be omitted.
See above
Undercroft areas to 2 DUP 21B houses should be omitted
See above.
All windows above porches and low roofs must be secure enhanced
products.
This issue has not been raised previously; however the applicant is willing to
discuss this point of detail with the ALO. The applicant believes that all the
products used in our development accord with the relevant Secured By Design
standards.
Gates set into deep recesses to some houses are not acceptable – e.g.
units 791/792 – relocate flush with the outer wall plain.
The applicant has stated that all gates set in deep recess will be relocated
flush with the outer wall plain.
Car spaces must be dedicated to a property – in an open plan strategy
visitors may locate their cars on a residents space thus potentially
causing conflict. The strategy offered by this scheme is NOT
workable.
The proposals have been revised / refined to ensure all parking spaces will be
allocated to a specific property. Visitor car parking spaces have been omitted
from the proposals.
Paths through secure courtyards – e.g. 714: 719 – will breach security
and should be omitted.
There are no paths through secure courtyard, only those dwellings that
require specific access to a courtyard have access
PHASE 5
Blocks KLM & HIJ
o All external doors to common areas should open outwards to
resist external forced pressure. (e.g. block G)
This point of detail has not been raised previously; however the
applicant is willing to discuss this with the ALO.
o Hinged gates are weak – adopt sliding gates.
o Block H – there is no provision for access control to the
apartments – there are two entrances offering the ingredients
for ASB
Block H access details have not been raised previously, however the
applicant is willing to discuss this detail with the ALO.
o Long corridors will create ‘play spaces’ and should be limited
in length perhaps adopting access controlled fail safe open midcorridor doors.
The sub-division of corridors in apartments blocks must be considered
with Fire /Building regulations, however the applicant is willing to
discuss this point in detail with the ALO
o Block I – building offers free access into the car park through
the front door – a typical example of poor security provision.
Block I does not have free access to the car park through the front
door, the car park can only be access through two secure doors,
however the applicants are willing to discuss this point of detail with
the ALO.
o Utility rooms - e.g. water booster rooms & tank rooms should
be steel doors.
The request for steel doors to utility rooms has not been raised
previously; however the applicant is willing to discuss this point of
detail with the ALO.
o Block J meter room doors should open outwards.
The opening of the meter room to Block J has not been raised
previously; however the applicant is willing to discuss this point of
detail with the ALO.
o Block J & K incorporate two entrances with free access
throughout the building. – this is not appropriate
Blocks J & K do not have free access to the car park through the front
door, the car park can only be access through two secure doors,
however we are willing to discuss this point of detail with the ALO.
o Block M – Free access to private secure car park through front
entrance door – poor security
Block M does not have free access to the car park through the front
door, the car park can only be access through two secure doors,
however the applicant is willing to discuss this point of detail with the
ALO.
As is detailed on page 84 of the agenda GMP concerns were reported verbally to
officers and the applicants prior to the submission of formal comments. As a result the
plans were revised where necessary, as detailed on pages 84-87 of the agenda (new
ground floor gable windows and defensible space introduced where surveillance
lacking) and additional justification was provided by the applicant on approaches
which have been taken in this instance. Specifically the applicant has commented that
the on street car parking solution proposed, which is one of may solutions throughout
the wider scheme, is appropriate in this instance given the level of natural surveillance
that will be provided. It was also reported that the gated areas will be subject of
continuous management and maintenance.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Members are aware that crime is a material planning consideration and must be
considered as part of an overall balanced planning judgement which must be taken. In
addition to such a requirement Members will also be aware of Section 17 of the Crime
and Disorder Act 1998, which states
"Without prejudice to any other obligations imposed upon it, it shall be the duty of
each authority to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of
the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all it reasonably can to prevent
crime and disorder in its area."
Representatives from the Council’s Community Safety team will be present at Panel
to advise Members of their responsibility in having regard to the above. Essentially,
the Panel must be satisfied, in reaching its decision (whatever that may be), that
regard has been had to the likely effects of the proposal on crime and disorder, and
that reasonable measures have been incorporated where necessary/considered
appropriate to prevent/mitigate crime and disorder in the area.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
APPLICATION No:
08/56364/OUT
APPLICANT:
G McMahon
LOCATION:
718 Liverpool Road Eccles M30 7LW
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application (to include layout and
access) for the erection of a terrace of five dwellings
and one building comprising 13 apartments
WARD:
Barton
OBSERVATIONS:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSEVATIONS
In the Planning Appraisal the last paragraph of the section on the effect on neighbours
has been amended to remove the reference to the city centre location of the site.
The standard wording regarding the S106 Agreement has also been added as follows:
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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
APPLICATION No:
08/56399/OUT
APPLICANT:
Drum Developments (NW) Ltd
LOCATION:
Land On Bloom Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application to include access, layout,
scale and appearance in respect of a six storey
building (Resubmission of planning application
07/55250/OUT)
WARD:
Ordsall
OBSERVATIONS:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Condition 4 regarding noise has been reworded to require a noise survey to be
submitted.
Following further discussion on detailed design matters an additional condition has
been attached requiring details of the ground floor elevation to Bloom Street and the
balcony construction on the building to be submitted and approved prior to the
commencement of development.
A condition regarding tv reception has also been attached.
The standard wording regarding the S106 Agreement has also been added as follows:
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 and
affordable housing.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++