APPLICATION No:
06/53168/OUT
APPLICANT:
Peel Media Ltd
LOCATION:
Land At Quays Point Off Broadway Salford Quays Salford
PROPOSAL:
Outline application to include layout and access in respect of the
redevelopment of 15.1 hectares of land to provide mixed use
development comprising business, studios and production space,
residential, live/work units, retail (including shops, financial and
professional services, restaurants and cafes, drinking
establishments and hotfood takeaways), hotel and leisure together
with associated car parking, highway works and open space.
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an area of land within Salford Quays. The site is known as
Quays Point and lies to the north of Dock 9. To the north of the site is Broadway, beyond
which are a number of industrial uses. To the south, the site is bounded by the
Manchester Ship Canal and Dock 9. The Imperial War Museum is located on the
opposite side of the Ship Canal, within Trafford. To the south, across Dock 9, are the
Lowry Theatre, Lowry Plaza and the Lowry Outlet shopping centre. To the south east of
the site are the three NV buildings and a building which is currently under construction by
City Lofts. To the east of the site is the Metrolink tramline, beyond which are industrial
units.
The majority of the application site is vacant and is part of the site is currently used as a
surface car park, accessed off The Quays road. In the eastern part of the site is the
1
former Freshbake Foods factory, which would be demolished as part of the proposals. To
the west of the site is a hydraulic tower, which, due to its local historic significance, would
be retained.
It is proposed to redevelop this site for a mixture of uses, including residential, offices,
leisure, retail, a hotel and media facilities. It is anticipated that the BBC would occupy part
of the site as part of the organisation’s move to Salford. The application is in outline with
approval sought for layout and access. Appearance, landscaping and scale have been
reserved for determination at a later date. However, the applicants have provided some
illustrative material which provides an indication of the type of buildings which may be
constructed on the site.
The site would be developed in three phases. The development of phase 1 would take
place between 2007 and 2010 and would comprise the following:
Offices: 58,623sqm
Studios: 20,300sqm
Residential: 296 units
Retail: 1,858sqm
Leisure: 1,400sqm
Hotel: 200 beds
Phase 1 would also include the provision of infrastructure within the site, including a road
linking Broadway to The Quays road, adjacent to the existing tramline, and three other
roads providing access into the site from Broadway. It would also include the creation of a
piazza area adjacent to the water’s edge. It is anticipated that the BBC would occupy the
majority of the office space within phase 1.
Phase 2 would take place between 2010 and 2017 and would comprise the following:
2
Offices: 30,497sqm
Studios: 2,925sqm
Live/work units: 2,280sqm
Residential: 1,000 units
Retail: 557sqm
Leisure: 888sqm
Hotel: 100 beds
The final phase would take place between 2017 and 2023. It would comprise:
Offices: 30,000sqm
Live/work units: 2,000sqm
Residential: 953 units
Leisure: 888sqm
The maximum number of units/floorspace for each of the uses proposed to be developed
across all phases on this site is therefore as follows:
Offices: 199,120sqm
Studios: 23,225sqm
Live/work: 4,280sqm
Residential: 2,249 units
Retail: 2,415sqm
Leisure: 3,176sqm
Hotel: 300 beds
SITE HISTORY
3
In October 2005, planning permission was granted for the continued use of the site as a
car park until October 2007 (ref: 05/51236/FUL).
In November 2003, planning permission was granted for the variation of conditions 1 and
3 on application ref: 97/36749/OUT (development of land for offices, residential, retail,
leisure, hotel and car parking) to extend the date for the submission of reserved matters
by a further five years to 31st October 2008 (ref: 03/46042/OUT).
In October 2000, outline planning permission was granted for the development of land at
Harbour City, Dock 9 And Broadway for offices (91,862sqm) residential, (600 units),
retail (2,415sqm), leisure (3,716sqm) and hotel (300 beds) (ref:
97/36749/OUT).
In January 1999, planning permission was granted for the use of the site as a temporary
site storage compound and the siting of storage containers (ref: 98/38480/COU).
CONSULTATIONS
Government Office for the North West – requested to be informed of the Council’s
decision
Countryside Agency – no objections
English Nature – no objections
Environment Agency – no objections. The Agency comments that the proposed
development should not result in the decrease of oxygen in the Manchester Ship Canal.
The Agency recommends that conditions relating to the disposal of Japanese knotweed,
surface water drainage, the disposal of foul and surface waters and site investigations be
attached to the permission. The Agency also advises that the Manchester Ship Canal
4
falls outside the Agency’s jurisdiction and the Manchester Ship Canal Company should
be contacted relating to the maintenance and repair of the canal bank and matters
relating to flood risk.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – comments received. The application
accords closely with the URC’s vision for the area, and the URC therefore strongly
supports the application.
Manchester City Council – no comments received to date
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council – no comments received to date
Manchester Ship Canal Company – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – The Ecology Unit undertook surveys of the site in
May and June 2006. A number of birds were discovered to be breeding on the site in
2006, including lapwings, skylarks and the ringed plover. In addition to the above
species, the GMEU is also states that the site supports the little ringed plover, which is
listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Black headed gulls and
mallards have also been recorded on the site. The GMEU recommends that a method
statement be prepared detailing how any disturbance to nesting birds is to be mitigated
during the course of the development. The GMEU recommends that the best way to
achieve this is to begin construction works outside of the bird breeding season (March
to July inclusive). If work is to begin in the breeding season, the GMEU recommends
that a new bird survey be conducted and, if birds are found to be nesting on the site, then
they must remain undisturbed until they have left. The GMEU also requests that the
development proposals include new wildlife habitats and features that would be of benefit
to wildlife.
5
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – comments received. The GMAU concurs with
the applicants’ findings and is satisfied with the provisional recommendations for
mitigation. The GMAU recommends that archaeological interests be secured by a
condition attached to the permission.
Highways Agency – on 18th August 2006, the Agency (on behalf of the Secretary of
State for Transport) issued a direction preventing the approval of the application
(under Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure
Order) 1995). The direction was issued for a perio
d of two months and therefore
expired on 18th October 2006. The Agency issued the direction in order to ensure that it
has sufficient time to obtain all the necessary information from the applicants and to
ensure that adequate time is available to resolve any issues that may arise. The Agency
has since been working with Urban Vision, the Council and the applicants address these
issues and to formulate conditions to be attached to the permission. It has issued a
revised TR110 directing that planning permission can be granted, subject to a number of
conditions, which will be discussed in the transport section of this report.
North West Regional Development Agency – comments received. The NWDA has been
closely involved in the BBC’s proposals to relocate some of its departments to Greater
Manchester, and its eventual preferred location at Salford Quays. The 2006 Regional
Economic Strategy identifies the planned relocation of the BBC as a key asset and
opportunity for the Manchester City Region, and one which will establish its status as the
premier broadcasting and commissioning centre outside London. The Agency therefore
supports the planning application.
North West Regional Assembly – comments received. The NWRA confirms that the
proposals are in accordance with Policy DP1 of both the adopted and draft RSS, which
promote the sequential test, use of brownfield land and an appropriate mix of uses.
Adopted RSS Policy SD1 and draft RSS policy RDF1 seek to concentrate development
in the regional centres of Manchester/Salford and Liverpool. Draft policy W1 recognises
6
the importance of media, creative and cultural industries in the Manchester City Region.
The proposed media-related uses would tie in well with the priorities set out in draft Policy
W1. The NWRA advises that clarification on the phasing of the residential units proposed
to be built within the site should be sought. The NWRA also advises that clarification be
sought on the funding of the extension of the Metrolink system (the Lowry Spur). The
NWRA welcomes the references made to public transport, but points out that no
reference is made to limiting the amount of car parking within the site. Finally, the NWRA
explains that draft policies L4, EM5, EM15, EM16 and EM17 continue the policy
approach in adopted RSS promoting sustainable water use, sustainable construction,
energy efficiency measures, use of renewable energy sources and combined heat and
power.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – comments received. The GMPTE
welcomes the proposed development, commenting that it would make a significant
contribution to regeneration. The GMPTE does however state that the proposed
development would generate a significant number of trips and it would therefore be
essential to maximise travel by non-car modes, in order to minimise congestion, air
pollution and carbon emissions. The GMPTE confirms that there will need to be
significant developer-funded improvements in the capacity, frequency and penetration of
public transport to the site, and it is working with the developer to look at ways of
delivering such improvements. The GMPTE highlights the importance of travel plans and
a framework travel plan for the whole site in influencing travel patterns and choices.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – comments received. The ALO
has no objections to the principle of the development, but recommends that the
applicants liaise with the unit prior to the details of the scheme being finalised. The ALO
has already been in contact with the applicants’ representatives outlining some of the
main security issues which may affect the development.
United Utilities – no objections
7
Grain Wharf Residents Association – no comments received to date
Grain Wharf Management Company – no comments received to date
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – no comments received to date
Lancashire Wildlife Trust – no comments received to date
Manchester Airport – comments received. Manchester Airport has no objections to the
proposal. It has however requested that it is consulted on the reserved matters
applications, and that both Manchester Airport and Barton Aerodrome be consulted on
proposals for the helipad. Finally, Manchester Airport states that any crane operations
will require a separate assessment and the applicants (or crane operators) should
notify Manchester Airport at least one month in advance of the erection of a crane.
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services – has provided detailed comments on
the application in relation to noise and vibration, contamination, air quality, lighting, fume
extraction and has recommended a number of conditions.
Health and Safety Executive – the comments from the HSE have been obtained through
its online consultation service. This has stated that they would not advise against the
granting of planning permission.
Chief Executive’s Directorate – has recommended that a financial contribution towards
securing a local employment supply be obtained from the applicants.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised in the press and on site.
8
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
F1, 1c, 1f, 1d, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6a, 7, 8, 8a, 8b, 9, 10, 11a, 12a, 12b, 12c, 13, 14,
15, 17, 18, 21, 22a, 22b, 23, 24a, 24c, 26, 27, 30, 32, Lowry Designer Outlet, The
Quays
NV Buildings Sale Office, The Quays
1-246 NV Buildings, The Quays
Piccadilly House, 130, 300, 310 Broadway
Quay Plaza Offices, Lowry Designer Outlet, The Quays
2, 2A, South Stage, Unit 6, 8, 12, Unit 10, Michigan Park, Michigan Avenue
The Lowry Centre, The Quays
Raab Karcher, South Langworthy Road
Unit L, M, N, 90 Northstage, Broadway
NV Buildings, 100 The Quays
30-54 Winnipeg Quay
Unit 1-9 Washington Centre, 102 Broadway
Unit T1A, T1B, T2, T3, T4, 1-8, 201-217, 301-312, 401-412, 501-512, 601-612,
701-712 , 801-812, 901- 912, 1001-1010, 1012, 1101-1112, 1201-1208 Imperial
Point
H1-H8, Lowry Designer Outlet, The Quays
The Management Suite, Lowry Designer Outlet, The Quays
Cinema, Lowry Designer Outlet, The Quays
G1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20a,20b, 21, 22,
23, 24, 25, 26, 27a, 27b, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40a, 40b, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45,
46, 46a, 51, 51a, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 58a, 59, 60a, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68
Lowry Designer Outlet, The Quays
City Lofts (Salford Quays), Town Centre House, Harrogate, Yorkshire
Unit 120, 122, 124, 210, 220, 130, 302, 310, 320, 400 Metroplex, Broadway
9
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of representation in response to the planning application
publicity. One letter does not raise any objections to this application, but it states that this
development is an opportunity to improve the design of new development at The Quays.
The second letter raises a number of issues which are summarised as follows:

The applicants have not referred to UDP Policy A3 which safeguards the route of
the tram.

If the Metrolink extension is approved in the location shown on the masterplan, the
applicants should provide a covered walkway and travellator onto Pier 8

Bus and boat routes should be shown on the proposals and utilised in order to
ease congestion

The application is contrary to UDP Policy A3

The outline application relies on the MediaCity:UK guidance which is not adopted

The extent of the proposed development will add pressure on the existing road
network

The pedestrian routes should be pedestrian and cycle routes

There is a gap in the pedestrian link along the Ship Canal water frontage

The Lowry Outlet Mall provides the main shopping facility and therefore any retail
within the application site should be local small scale convenience retail to serve
that immediate market.

The skyline should cascade down to the water front
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site Specific Policies: none
Other policies: DP1: Economy in the Use of Land and Building
10
DP2: Enhancing the Quality of Life
DP3: Quality in New Development
DP4: Promoting Sustainable Economic Growth and Competitiveness and
Social Inclusion
SD1: The North West Metropolitan Area Regional Poles and Surrounding
Areas
EC8: Town Centres – Retail, Leisure and Office Development
UR1: Urban Renaissance
UR2: Inclusive Social Infrastructure
UR3: Promoting Social Inclusion through Urban accessibility
UR4: Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
UR9: Affordable Housing
UR10: Greenery, Urban Greenspace and the Public Realm
ER5: Biodiversity and Nature Conservation
ER7: Water Resources
EQ2: Air Quality
EQ3: Water Quality
T9: Demand Management
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/3 – Development in Mixed Use Areas (Salford Quays)
Other policies: ST1: Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST2: Housing Supply
ST3: Employment Supply
ST5: Transport Networks
ST6: Major Trip Generating Development
ST7: Mixed-Use Development
ST8: Environmental Quality
ST9: Retail, Leisure, Social and Community Provision
11
ST11: Location of New Development
ST12: Development Density
DES1: Respecting Context
DES2: Circulation and Movement
DES3: Design of Public Space
DES4: Relationship of Development with Public Space
DES5: Tall Buildings
DES6: Waterside Development
DES9: Landscaping
DES10: Design and Crime
DES11: Design Statement
H1: Provision of New Housing Development
H2: Managing the Supply of Housing
H4: Affordable Housing
H8: Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
S2: Retail and Leisure Development Outside Town Centres, and
Neighbourhood Centres
S4: Amusement Centre and Food and Drink Uses
A1: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A2: Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A3: Metrolink
A5: Buses
A8: Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A9: Provision of New Highways
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
EN10: Protection of Species
EN14: Derelict, Underused and Neglected Land
EN16: Contaminated Land
EN17: Pollution Control
12
EN18: Protection of Water Resources
EN22: Resource Conservation
R2: Provision of Recreational Land and Facilities
DEV5: Planning Conditions and Obligations
CH5: Archaeology and Ancient Monuments
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP1: Regional Development Principles
RDF1: Main Development Locations
W1: Strengthening the Regional Economy
W2: Broad Locations for Regionally Significant Economic Development
W5: Retail Development
L4: Regional Housing Provision
L5: Affordable Housing
RT2: Management and Maintenance of the Highway Network
RT6: Parking Policy and Provision
RT7: A Regional Framework for Walking and Cycling
EM2: Remediating Contaminated Land
MCR1: Manchester City Region Priorities
MCR2: Regional Centre and Inner Areas of the Manchester City Region
There are a number of Supplementary Planning Documents which are also relevant to
the determination of this application. These include Design and Crime, Trees, the
Greenspace Strategy and Biodiversity and Nature Conservation. The Council’s Housing
and Planning Obligations SPDs are also relevant, but have not as yet been adopted so
can therefore only be afforded limited weight in the decision making process. The
Council, in conjunction with Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council, has also recently
produced a draft of the Mediacity:UK and Quays Point planning guidance, which has
been the subject of public consultation. This is however non-statutory guidance as it is
13
not included within the Council’s Local Development Framework. It does however set out
guidelines which both authorities should have regard to in the determination of planning
applications, albeit that it has limited weight at this stage.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issues in the determination of the application are: whether the principle of the
redevelopment of the site is acceptable; whether the principle of the proposed uses is
acceptable; whether the proposed housing provision is acceptable; whether the
proposed design and access are acceptable; whether the impacts of the proposed
development in relation to trees and ecology are acceptable; whether the impacts of the
proposed development on the environment would be acceptable; whether the highway
implications of the proposed development are acceptable; and whether the proposed
development would accord with the Council’s policies on open space and planning
obligations. These issues will be discussed in turn below.
Principle of the Redevelopment of the Site
Policy ST11 outlines the sequential approach to the bringing forward of land for
development and details the order in which sites for development should be brought
forward: existing buildings; previously developed land which is well served by a choice of
means of transport and is well related to housing, employment, services and
infrastructure; previously developed land in other locations provided that adequate levels
of accessibility could be achieved; and finally greenfield sites in locations which are, or
would be made to be, well served by a choice of transport and well related to
employment, services and infrastructure.
Policy H2 requires the release of land for housing development to be managed in
accordance with the sequential approach set out in Policy ST11.
14
Policy DP1 of RSS requires economy in the use of land and buildings. It states that
development plans should adopt a sequential approach to meeting housing needs as
follows: firstly, the effective use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban
areas; secondly, the use of previously developed land; and finally the development of
previously undeveloped land, where it would avoid areas of important open space, is well
located in relation to houses, jobs, other services and infrastructure and is or can be
made accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.
Policy DP1 of Draft RSS also encourages the effective use of land, buildings and
infrastructure and advocates the sequential approach to meeting development needs, as
outlined in Adopted RSS Policy DP1.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing, provides a definition of previously
development land:
‘Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure
(excluding agricultural or forestry buildings), and associated fixed surface
infrastructure. The definition covers the curtilage of the development. Previously
developed land may occur in both built up and rural settings.’
The whole site is considered to be previously developed land, as defined in Government
guidance such as Annex C of PPG3 (Housing). It was previously used as a container
terminal associated with the Manchester Docks, which closed in 1982, and associated
buildings and structures have since been cleared. The eastern part of the site is currently
occupied by the former Freshbake Foods building, and the southern part is used for car
parking. There is no evidence that the rest of the site has naturally regenerated, and
much of it appears to be hard surfaced.
The principle of development on the site is therefore considered to be appropriate. It
would accord with the sequential approach to development, which prioritises the re-use
15
of existing buildings and previously developed land over the development of greenfield
land, as set out in PPS1, PPG3, Policy DP1 of RSS and Policy ST11 the UDP.
The principle of development on much of the site (excluding the former Fr eshbake
Foods building) has previously been accepted through the granting of outline planning
permissions (97/36479/OUT and 03/46042/OUT). These permitted the following uses:
Offices (Use Class B1)
91,862 m2
Residential
600 units
Retail
2,415 m2
Leisure
3,716 m2
Hotel
300 beds
The latter of these permissions extended the former, and the approval of reserved
matters is required by the end of October 2008. The residential element of the extant
outline permission has now been taken up by subsequent permissions, some of which
have been fully implemented.
In view of the brownfield nature of the site and given that permission has already been
granted for a mixture of uses on the site, I am satisfied that the principle of its
redevelopment is acceptable and in accordance with the above policies.
Principle of the Proposed Uses
1. Mixed Use
Policy MX1 states that Salford Quays will be developed as a vibrant mixed-use area with
a broad range of uses and activities, and development within it will be required to support
this.
16
The whole site falls within the Salford Quays mixed-use area, as defined on the
Proposals Map as MX1/3. The proposal incorporates a broad range of uses and
activities, including offices, housing, live/work units, retail, leisure, hotels, essential
infrastructure and support facilities and cultural uses.
Policy MC:UK 1 of the Draft MediaCity:UK and Quays Point Planning Guidance also
makes clear that a mix of uses will be promoted on the application (Quays Point) site.
This application is therefore considered to be fully consistent with the overall purpose of
Policy MX1, and would help to consolidate Salford Quays as an attractive and successful
mixed-use area forming an integral part of the Regional Centre. It would also make a
significant contribution to delivering the principles of the Spatial Framework of the UDP,
which states that the Regional Centre (within which the application site and the rest of
Salford Quays are located) will co ntinue to be developed as a nationally important
mixed-use area (paragraph 3.2).
2. Offices
The site is located within the Western Gateway, which is identified within the UDP Spatial
Framework as the major focus for economic development activity during the plan period.
The UDP encourages further economic investment within the Western Gateway through
the development of a number of sites, including Dock 9. The Spatial Framework states
that such new development will need to have regard to the capacity of the existing
motorway and road networks, and will require additional investment in transport
infrastructure. The UDP makes provisions for such improvements, such as the Broadway
Link, through its policies.
As discussed above, Policy MX1 identifies offices as an appropriate use within a
mixed-use area (point B).The current proposal represents a 30% increase in office
floorspace compared to the existing outline planning permission for the site. This is
17
considered to be appropriate, and would be consistent with the reference in paragraph
5.6 of the reasoned justification to Policy MX1, which states that Salford Quays will
continue to develop as one of the region’s primary office locations. It would not unduly
dominate the mix of uses, particularly given the number of residential units that are
proposed.
Policy MC:UK 1 of the Draft MediaCity:UK and Quays Point Planning Guidance identifies
commercial development, such as high quality office-based employment uses, as being
appropriate. It places a particular emphasis on media and creative industries. I am
therefore satisfied that the proposed level of office space within the development is
acceptable.
3. Studios and Production Space
Policy MX1 identifies knowledge-based employment as an appropriate use within a
mixed-use area (point J), and studios and production space are considered to fall
within this category.
Policy MC:UK1 states that commercial development, with a particular emphasis on
media and creative industries, will be encouraged at Quays Point.
I am satisfied that the studio and production space proposed would complement the
office use referred to above and would be consistent with the above policies and with the
UDP’s Spatial Framework, paragraph 3.9 of which states that within the Regional Centre
the economic growth sectors of knowledge-based and media-related industries will be
particularly targeted.
4. Residential
Policy MX1 identifies housing as an appropriate use within a mixed-use area (point A),
as does Policy MC:UK 1 of the Draft MediaCity:UK and Quays Point Planning Guidance.
18
Paragraph 5.6 of the reasoned justification to UDP Policy MX1 estimates that in the
region of 2,500 dwellings will come forward in the area during the plan period. This
statement was consistent with the overall scale of housing provision planned for in Policy
ST2 of the UDP, which itself was based on the current RPG13 housing provision figure
for Salford of an annual average of 530 dwellings per annum net of clearance.
Since 1st April 2004 (which is the start date for the UDP housing figures) 422 dwellings
have been completed within the Salford Quays mixed-use area (MX1/3), and 824
dwellings are currently under construction. A further 856 dwellings have planning
permission. This would account for 2,102 of the indicative figure of 2,500 dwellings over
the plan period. The proposal is for a further 2,249 dwellings, 1,296 of which would be
delivered during the UDP period (the remaining 953 being delivered by 2023),
increasing the potential overall supply within MX1/3 over the plan period to 3,398 (or
36% above the indicative UDP figure). Although the UDP figure is purely indicative, the
proposal would result in it being exceeded and therefore consideration needs to be given
to whether this would be appropriate.
It is also important to consider the overall housing supply position within Salford. In the
first four years of the RPG13 housing provision figures (from April 2002), there has
been an undersupply in Salford of 64 dwellings. However, as of 31st March 2006, there
was a supply of 11,242 dwellings with planning permission, which suggests that this
might become an oversupply in the near future.
Policy H2 (Managing the Supply of Housing) sets out the circumstances in which the
provision of new housing may be restricted within the city, this being where there is
evidence of an unacceptable actual or potential oversupply of housing. Any oversupply is
considered to be unacceptable for the purposes of the policy where there is clear
evidence that it is, or is likely to have, an unacceptable adverse impact on one or more
factors which are discussed in turn below:
19
i)
The achievement of the overall strategy of the Regional Spatial Strategy for
the North West, or any subsequent Regional Spatial Strategy.
The reasoned justification to the policy makes it clear that this criterion includes the
housing provision figures. Therefore, any ‘oversupply’ could be considered unacceptable
in those terms. However, clearly this is only one element to be considered when
determining whether there is an unacceptable impact on the strategy of RPG13,
otherwise the policy would simply state that the 530 dwellings per annum net average
should not be exceeded without listing any other factors to be considered.
As discussed above, the city has slightly underachieved in relation to its RPG13 housing
provision figure over the period 2002-2006, but the extant supply of planning permissions
indicates that it is likely to exceed it in the future. However, there is no evidence that this
would cause any harm, even if this application is approved, and therefore it is not
considered that it would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the overall strategy of
RPG13.
The housing figures cannot be considered in isolation from the rest of the strategy of
RPG13. The document has seven objectives, two of which are of particular relevance
with regard to housing, namely:
To achieve greater economic competitiveness and growth, with associated
social progress; and
To secure an urban renaissance in the cities and towns of the North West.
The Office of National Statistics’ (ONS) latest 2003
-based household projections
indicate an average growth of 23,111 households per annum in the North West over the
period 2003-2021 (an increase from 2,874,000 in 2003 to 3, 290,000 in 2021),
representing a 60% increase on the forecast that underpins RPG13. The projections are
trend-based and indicate what would happen if past demographic changes continue. The
20
Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (published in March 2006) plans for
a similar level of
household growth to the ONS projection (22,387 per annum in the North West).
I am of the opinion that, rather than compromising the strategy of RPG13, the
‘overprovision’ of dwellings in Salford may actually help to ensure that it is achieved, as
the new housing provision figure for Salford proposed by the NWRA in the interim draft
version of the new RSS indicates (at 1,600 dwellings per annum net of clearance).
Restricting residential development to an annual average of 530 dwellings per annum
could potentially significantly constrict economic growth and push house prices up
further, exacerbating the problems identified in the Barker Report.
RPG13 Policy SD1 states that a ‘significant proportion of development and urban
renaissance resources of the Region should be focused on the North West Metropolitan
Area, especially the Regional Poles and surrounding urban areas’. It then goes on to say
that:
‘Within the North West Metropolitan Area, first priority will therefore be given to
development and resources which will enhance significantly the economic strength,
complementarity of roles, overall quality of life, environmental enhancement, and social
regeneration within:
the city centre of Liverpool and its surrounding inner area; and
the city centre area of Manchester/Salford and its surrounding inner area;
and which will enhance the major, strategic infrastructure which supports them’.
Therefore, satisfying the higher than anticipated demand for housing in the North West
within the city centre area of Manchester/Salford, within which the application site lies,
would be in accordance with the spatial strategy of RPG13. This is highlighted by there
being no evidence that the scale of residential development in Salford is drawing
21
investment away from other areas to the detriment of their regeneration or the
achievement of their RSS housing provision figures.
RPG13 Policy UR1 states that local authorities should promote urban renaissance by,
inter alia, reviving local economies and reviving communities. The scale of housing
coming forward in Salford is helping to revive local communities, particularly as part of
the comprehensive regeneration of the Housing Market Renewal area. It is also helping
to support the city’s economic revival (a nd that of the region and North of the country
more generally, in accordance with the Northern Way Growth Strategy), by ensuring
that there is high quality housing within or close to the Regional Centre thereby helping to
attract both investment and new workers.
Overall, therefore, it is not considered that there is clear evidence that the provision of
housing within Salford is having, or is likely to have, an unacceptable impact on the
achievement of the overall strategy of RPG13. Instead, the evidence indicates that it is
supporting that strategy, and a restriction on housing development would actually
compromise it. The proposed development would help to deliver the housing that is
required to meet the needs of this scale of household growth, as identified by both the
Government and the North West Regional Assembly. It would do so by efficiently using
previously developed land within a location that is identified in RPG13 as a priority for
new development, and that would be close to the largest concentration of employment
opportunities in the region thereby minimising the need to travel. In summary, it is
therefore considered to be consistent with the overall strategy of RPG13.
ii)
The regeneration of the regional pole of Manchester/Salford.
The provision of housing within the regional pole is a key element of its regeneration, but
it needs to be ensured that it does not become overly dominant at the expense of other
uses. The application proposal is considered to provide an appropriate balance between
22
residential and other uses, and would therefore support rather than compromise the
regeneration of the regional pole.
iii)
The Housing Market Renewal Initiative in Manchester and Salford and in
Oldham/Rochdale.
There is no evidence to suggest that the scale of housing provision within Salford is
having any adverse impact on the HMR areas. Salford’s part of the Regional Centre falls
within the Manchester/Salford HMR area, and so the proposal would contribute to that
initiative by enhancing its housing market.
iv)
The achievement of other regeneration priorities within Salford.
There is no evidence that the scale of housing within Salford, or this proposed
development, would have any negative impacts on other regeneration priorities within the
city.
v)
The adequate provision of infrastructure and other services
There is no evidence of any negative impact in this regard. The various improvements to
local transport infrastructure will be discussed in more detail in the transport section of
this report.
Therefore, it is considered that the scale of residential development proposed on the site
would be acceptable, and would not lead to an unacceptable supply of housing within the
city.
5. Live/Work Units
23
Adopted UDP Policy MX1 identifies live/work units as an appropriate use within a
mixed-use area (point J). The scale of additional residential and employment
floorspace through live/work units is minor compared to that proposed within the rest of
the development, and therefore it is considered that the issues relating to them have
already been identified above.
6. Retail
Adopted UDP Policy MX1 identifies retail uses as appropriate within a mixed-use area
(point H), provided that this is consistent with the retail policies of the UDP.
Policy S2 states that planning permission will only be granted for retail and leisure where
it can be clearly demonstrated that: there is a quantitative and, where appropriate,
qualitative need for the development; there are no more appropriate sites or buildings
available; there would be no unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of any town
or neighbourhood centre; the site will be well served by a choice of means of transport;
the development would not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion; the
development would be of an appropriate scale; the development would be of a high
standard of design; and that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on
environmental quality or residential amenity.
Policy EC8 of RSS states that development plans and other strategies should recognise
the continued need to protect, sustain and improve all the town and city centres in the
Region by encouraging new retail, leisure and/or mixed use developments within existing
defined town and city centres and directing office developments that generate significant
numbers of trips to suitable locations within or adjoining main city and town centres, or
district centres, and near to major public transport interchanges within urban areas. It
continues to promote the adoption of a sequential approach to retail and leisure
development.
24
Draft RSS Policy W5 states that plans and strategies should promote retail investment
where it assists in the regeneration and economic growth of the NorthWest’s town and
city centres.
Policy MC:UK 1 of the Draft MediaCity:UK and Quays Point Planning Guidance identifies
retail development as appropriate provided that it complements and strengthens the
current retail offer on the Quays, rather than competing with Manchester City Centre’s
shopping offer.
Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres, seeks to maintain the vitality
and viability of existing centres. It sets out the five tests which an applicant should
demonstrate compliance with. These are: a) the need for the development; b) that the
development is of an appropriate scale; c) that there are no more central sites for the
development; d) that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres; and e)
that locations are accessible.
Taking each of the criteria of Policy S2 in turn, point i. of the policy relates to the need for
the additional retailing. The principle of 2,415 m2 of retail floorspace as part of a
mixed-use development on this site has already been established through the existing
outline planning permission. The current proposal involves 1,649 dwellings more than the
outline, as well as additional employment floorspace, generating further local need. This
would be augmented by the 600 proposed dwellings with planning permission
immediately to the east on Michigan Way, as well as by the 180 dwellings under
construction on the former showmen’s site on Broadway. Therefore, there would be a
significant additional retail need resulting from the proposed development, and from
nearby developments.
Point ii. relates to the sequential test. Given the size of the development, it would be
appropriate for it to include some retail development to meet the local needs of residents,
employees and visitors, thereby reducing the need to travel and contributing to the
25
development of a vibrant mixed-use area in accordance with Policy MX1. The nearest
Neighbourhood Centres are more than 1km away (Regent Road, and Langworthy
Road), and therefore on -site retail provision to meet local needs is considered
appropriate.
Point iii. relates to the impact on existing centres. Given the need that would be
generated by the proposed development, its location and the scale of the retailing
proposed, it is not considered that the retail provision would have an unacceptable
impact on existing centres, for example by diverting trade away from them.
Point iv. relates to accessibility, and point v. to traffic generation. The retailing would be
highly accessible to its catchment population, given that it would be serving a local need,
and would therefore be unlikely to generate significant levels of traffic. These issues will
be considered in detail in a later section of this report relating to transport.
Point vi. relates to the scale and relationship to the catchment population, which are
considered to be appropriate as discussed above.
Points viii. and ix. relate to issues that would be considered through applications for the
approval of reserved matters and are not therefore directly relevant at this stage of the
proposal.
In light of the above, I am satisfied that the retail element of the proposal is acceptable
and complies with the above policies.
7. Leisure
Policy MX1 identifies leisure as an appropriate use within a mixed-use area (point D).
26
Policy S2, summarised above, relates to leisure developments outside town and
neighbourhood centres.
The principle of 3,716 m2 of leisure use as part of a mixed-use development on this site
has already been established through the existing outline permission. The proposal is for
slightly less floorspace at 3,176 m2. It would contribute to the mix of uses within the area,
and is therefore considered acceptable.
8. Hotel
Adopted UDP Policy MX1 identifies hotels as an appropriate use within a mixed-use area
(point C).
The principle of a 300-bed hotel as part of a mixed-use development on this site has
already been established through the existing outline permission. It would contribute to
the mix of uses within the area, and would support the function of Salford Quays as one
of three key tourism areas within the city, as identified in Adopted UDP Policy ST4. It is
therefore considered acceptable.
Housing Provision
Policy H1 requires all new housing development to, inter alia, contribute towards the
provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area, in terms of size, type,
tenure and affordability.
Policy H4 requires that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing
to meet local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the Council, to
provide affordable housing of appropriate types.
27
Draft RSS Policy L5 requires plans and strategies to set out requirements for affordable
housing.
Policy HOU1 of the Draft Housing SPD allows for residential developments within the
Regional Centre to consist wholly of apartments.
Policy HOU5 of the Draft Housing SPD proposes that on residential sites of this scale, at
least 20% of dwellings should be in the form of affordable housing.
Policy HOU7 of the Draft Housing SPD indicates that such provision should normally be
in the form of social rented accommodation, unless otherwise agreed with the Council.
Policy MC:UK 1 of the Draft MediaCity:UK and Quays Point Planning Guidance states
that innovative approaches to the provision of suitably high density family
accommodation should form part of the mix.
It would appear likely that all of the housing provision within the site would be in the form
of apartments. Although the Draft Housing SPD cannot be given much weight in
decision-making given the number of objections to it, the proposal would be consistent
with Policy HOU1.
The applicants are aware of the importance of providing a diverse mix of apartment types
and sizes across the site, in accordance with Policy H1 and this can be dealt with at
reserved matters stage.
Although, as discussed above, the Draft Housing SPD can be afforded little weight, it is
still considered that there is evidence of an affordable housing need within this part of the
city. The applicants have confirmed that they do not intend to provide affordable housing
as part of their proposals for this site. They have stated that they are doubtful of the need
for affordable housing in this area and assert that the size and length of the construction
28
programme would provide the scope for the provision of a broad range and mix of
housing types within the site. In addition, they highlight the investment which would be
made by the North West Development Agency, on a scheme totalling some £460 million,
which would equate to up to £30 million in key public realm and public infrastructure
elements. Such investment is expected to include contributions towards: the
enhancement of the public transport connectivity of the site with the regional centre and
the wider city region (notably prospective Metrolink improvements); better pedestrian
connectivity of the site to and from the Trafford side of the Ship Canal for workers and
visitors to mediacity:uk (namely a new pedestrian bridge over the Canal); a principal
focal point and external space to encourage networking, interchange of information and
exchange of ideas between different individuals and businesses (the piazza); and the
'covered' public realm adjoining the main studios complex (the Open Centre).
It can
therefore be seen that the proposal would result in a number of significant benefits, and
the need to secure affordable housing should be weighed against these benefits, as well
as the viability of the scheme and the overall quality of the development.
Taking all of the above into account, I consider that the development has the potential to
consolidate and expand the success of Salford Quays and the regeneration of the city as
a whole. I also consider that, due to their scale and nature, the significant benefits of the
scheme, as discussed above, outweigh the need to secure affordable housing on the site
and I therefore have no objections to the application on these grounds.
Design and Access
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.
29
Policy DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to be fully accessible to
all people, maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists to, through and around
the site, enable pedestrians to navigate their way through an area by providing
appropriate views, vistas and transport links, enable safe, direct and convenient access
to public transport facilities and other local amenities and minimise potential conflicts
between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
Policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public
space, that public space must be designed to, have a clear role and purpose, responding
to established or proposed local economic, social, cultural and environmental needs,
reflect and enhance the character and identity of the area, form an integral part of, and
provide an appropriate setting for, surrounding developments be attractive, safe,
uncluttered and appropriately lit, be of an appropriate scale, connect to established
pedestrian routes and other public spaces and minimise, and make provision for,
maintenance requirements.
Policy DES4 outlines that development which adjoins public space shall be designed to
have a strong and positive relationship with that space.
Policy DES5 outlines a number of circumstances where tall buildings will be permitted,
including: where the scale of the development is appropriate to its location; the location is
highly accessible by public transport, walking and cycling; the buildings would positively
relate to and interact with the public realm; the buildings would be of the highest quality,
would make a positive addition to the skyline and would not detract from important views;
there would be no unacceptable overshadowing or overlooking; there would be no
unacceptable impact on microclimate, telecommunications activity, aviation safety, and
the development would be consistent with other UDP policies.
Policy DES6 requires all new development adjacent to Salford Quays to facilitate
pedestrian access to, along and, where appropriate, across the waterway by the
30
provision of a safe, attractive and overlooked waterside walkway accessible to all at all
times, pedestrian links between the waterside walkway and other key pedestrian routes,
and where appropriate, ground floor uses which generate pedestrian activity.
Development will also be required to, where possible, protect, improve or provide wildlife
habitats and conserve and complement any historic features and not affect the
maintenance or integrity of the waterway. Finally, the policy requires all built development
along the Quays to face onto the water, incorporate entrances onto the waterfront where
appropriate, be of the highest standard of design, be of a scale sufficient to frame the
edge of the waterside and enhance views from, of, across and along the waterway.
Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard
and soft landscaping provision. Where landscaping is required as part of a development,
it must be of a high quality, reflect and enhance the character of the area, not detract from
safety and security, form an integral part of the development, be easily maintained,
respect adjacent land uses and wherever possible make provision for the creation of new
wildlife habitats.
Policy DES10 development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage
crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime.
Policy DES11 requires the submission of a design statement with all major applications
explaining how the development takes account of the need for good design, the design
principles and design concept and how these are reflected in the development’s layout,
density, scale, visual appearance and landscaping, the relationship of the development
to its site and the wider context and how the development will meet the Council’s design
objectives.
Policy UR10 of RSS seeks to ensure that strategies are in place for the design,
management, maintenance and enhancement of public realm and urban greenspace. It
outlines a number of priorities, including enhancing the setting of residential
31
neighbourhoods, increasing the overall stock of urban trees and improving accessibility
and community safety.
Policy MC:UK 3 outlines the requirements for the urban form, density and massing at the
Quays Point site. It states that the redevelopment of the site should take a more
traditional urban form than has been typical at the Quays, with dense and compact city
blocks, generally eight to ten storeys in height, punctuated with the occasional high
tower, possibly over twenty storeys in height, at the Broadway end of the site. Areas of
public realm should radiate from the waterfront, with a piazza on the waterfront to Dock 9.
MC:UK5 states that the delivery of a number of core infrastructure and public realm
interventions are central to the vision to develop Quays Point as a thriving part of MC:UK
and the Regional Centre. These include the waterfront, the piazza facing the Lowry, the
creation of new boulevards and a network of pocket parks, squares and green spaces.
MC:UK7 states that a network of pedestrian and cycle friendly streets will be promoted
throughout Quays Point which should link to the urban fabric north of Broadway.
In considering the appropriateness of the design and access of the proposed
development, it is important to note that the application is in outline, with approval sought
only for the layout of the site and access. Scale, appearance and landscaping are all
reserved for determination at a late date. Therefore, many of the issues raised by the
above policies will be considered at reserved matters stage, when detailed designs are
submitted and are not directly relevant to the consideration of this application.
The applicants have submitted a design and access statement with this application,
which discusses the factors which have influenced the design of the site to date and
provides a vision and a framework for the future. The masterplan for the site has evolved
over the past few years, which has, in part, been due to the BBC’s recent involvement in
the site and its specific requirements. Initial proposals for the site’s redevelopment
32
involved four landmark towers adjacent to the water’s edge. Whilst the concept of the
towers has remained in part, other aspects of the masterplan have changed. It is now
based on a radiating pattern of streets, boulevards and spaces from the water’s edge out
towards Broadway. Within this radial framework, it is anticipated that taller buildings
would be located towards the north of the site, with smaller buildings bordering the
waterfront piazza to the south. Buildings would be set amongst the fine grained urban
street pattern. The applicants envisage that a range of architectural styles will be used
across the site in order to achieve a rich variety whilst ensuring the highest quality design.
The applicants have provided a number of indicative images which illustrate how the site
would be developed, particularly in relation to the BBC element of the proposal. Although
these are only indicative at this stage, they do provide a clear indication of the applicants’
aspirations for the site and the quality of the proposed development. It can be seen that
the buildings would be highly contemporary and would achieve presence through their
design, rather than their scale and massing. It is intended that the BBC’s head quarters
building would be located on the waterfront, facing the Lowry and the War Museum,
creating a landmark feature.
I am satisfied that the broad principles outlined in the design and access statement and
illustrated on the masterplan are appropriate for this site. High density development will
be essential in order to make the most efficient use of the site and to respond to the site’s
context, which is increasingly characterised by tall, high quality buildings. The location of
lower buildings and a piazza adjacent to the water’s edge would be capable of creating
an attractive waterside area where there would be significant levels of activity. The
masterplan also indicates the provision of a walkway by the side of the Ship Canal, which
would be overlooked by a number of mixed-use/residential buildings.
A detailed assessment of the proposal’s compliance with Policy DES5 will only be
possible when the precise details of the proposed buildings are finalised at reserved
matters stage. I am however satisfied that the development of tall buildings on this site is
33
acceptable in principle, given the need to achieve high density development, the need to
create a landmark and high quality development and the site’s location in close proximity
to public transport links. Issues relating to the development’s impact on microclimate will
be discussed in a later section of this report. It should also be noted that I have not
received any objections to the application from Manchester Airport in respect of aviation.
The applicants have submitted a plan showing the maximum heights of buildings within
the site, and I am satisfied that this is acceptable.
I have attached conditions requiring the submission of samples of the materials to be
used for the exterior of the buildings within the site which I consider to be necessary to
ensure that the development of the site meets the requirements of the above policies. I
have attached a condition requiring the submission of design statements with
applications for the approval of reserved matters. Subject to compliance with the above, I
am satisfied that the application is acceptable with regards to design.
Trees and Ecology
Policy EN10 states that development which would be likely to have an adverse impact on
legally protected species will only be permitted where mitigation measures are put in
place to maintain the population level of the species at a favourable conservation status
within its natural range.
Policy ER5 of RSS requires local planning authorities to afford the strongest level of
protection to statutorily protected species in their plans, policies and proposals.
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, requires local
planning authorities to not only protect biodiversity but also, wherever possible, to
actively enhance it. Particular advice is provided in respect of networks of natural
habitats, which are recognised as valuable resources which should be maintained to
avoid fragmentation and subsequent isolation of natural habitats, as well as biodiversity
34
within developments, where local planning authorities should encourage and maximise
opportunities for building in beneficial biodiversity features as part of good design.
In relation to ecology, the applicants undertook a walkover survey of the site which was
designed to identify the habitats present and ascertain the potential of the presence of
protected species. The survey was undertaken in May 2006. The applicants consider the
site to be of low potential for the roosting of bats, although the area may be used for
foraging and commuting. They state that although the site may represent a good habitat
for reptiles, it is of low potential due to the lack of connectivity for recolonisation. Finally,
within the site as
’
waste ground
‘
in relation to birds, the applicants have identified the
being of high potential for ground nesting species and foraging for all species. During the
walkover survey, the applicants have confirmed that lapwings, little ringed plovers,
skylarks, black headed gulls, mallards and Canada geese were observed. The applicants
conclude that, due to the presence of a number of bird species on the site, it would be
necessary to carry out mitigation measures to prevent birds from nesting on the site prior
to any development being undertaken.
In view of the above, and in light of the comments received from the GMEU, I have
attached a condition requiring the submission of schemes detailing how the disturbance
of nesting birds would be mitigated prior to the commencement of the development of
each phase.
’
Turning to trees, the applicants have, in accordance with the Council s SPD on trees,
submitted a tree survey for the whole site. There are two main areas of trees within the
site. These are along the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to Broadway, and along
the eastern boundary of the site, adjacent to the tramline. The tree survey has considered
the species, size, age and health of each of the trees, but, given that the application is in
outline, has not assessed the specific impacts of the proposed development on the trees.
The survey outlines that the majority of the trees are healthy, with only the minority
showing visible signs of disease.
35
’
The trees within the site have also been inspected by the Council s consultant
arboriculturist, who is of the opinion that some of the trees make a significant contribution
to the amenity of the area, and have a significant visual impact.
As the application is in outline, it is not possible to determine exactly which trees would be
lost a result of this proposal. It is however likely that, due to the nature of the application
and the amount of development proposed to take place on the site, that the majority, if
not all of the existing trees within the site would be felled in order to accommodate the
proposed development. In support of this approach, the applicants assert that the
majority of the trees on the site are either self-seeded or were planted on a man-made
bund in order to screen the site from Broadway. They consider the trees to be a barrier,
preventing views, access and linkages between the site and Broadway and beyond. As
the proposed development is intended to create better linkages between the site and its
surroundings, the applicants assert that the trees are no longer necessary, and that
screening the site would not be necessary or desirable. The illustrative information
submitted with the application also indicates that replacement trees would be planted
within the site as part of the overall landscape strategy for the development.
The loss of trees within the site must be balanced against the benefits of the proposed
development. The application would result in the redevelopment of an unattractive and
underused site in a highly prominent location and would involve the creation of a high
quality mixed use development in a sustainable location. The planting of replacement
trees within the site as part of a comprehensive landscape strategy would be an
important benefit of the scheme. Therefore, on balance, I consider the loss of the trees
within the site to be acceptable. Whilst I acknowledge that some of the trees make a
contribution to the amenity of the area, I consider that, due to their location, they would, if
retained, serve to isolate the site from the surrounding area, particularly the area to the
north of Broadway. This would not, in my opinion, be desirable in urban design terms,
36
and I consider that the amenity of the area would be more effectively enhanced through
new tree planting as part of an overall strategy for the redevelopment of the site.
Subject to the conditions mentioned above in relation to trees and ecology, I am satisfied
that the application accords with the above policies.
Impacts on the Environment
The application has been accompanied by an Environmental Statement (ES) (and
addendum), as the proposed development has been determined to constitute
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development. The ES outlines the likely
impacts of the proposed development, both in terms of demolition and construction
phase and the completed development, on different aspects of the environment, the
methods used to assess the impacts and the mitigation measures proposed to address
these impacts. The significance of the impacts has been assessed and the types of
impacts described. The ES also describes the residual effects of both construction and
the completed development, which are those effects which would remain following
implementation of the mitigation measures. The different aspects of the environment
assessed in the ES are discussed in turn below.
1. Socio-economic
The application site is a largely vacant piece of land which currently makes little
contribution to the area or the quality of life in Salford. The applicants assert that, as the
application is for a mixed use development in a highly sustainable location which would
bring about new opportunities for living, working and recreation, there would be
substantial economic and social benefits arising from the development. The applicants
claim that such benefits would include the provision of 2,249 new homes in a highly
accessible location, the provision of cultural facilities, employment opportunities for
15,500 people, 1,500 trainee posts per year, space for 1,150 creative and related
37
businesses, the provision of leisure and recreation facilities and a contribution of £1.5
billion to the regional economy. The applicants consider that the effects on the local
economy would be positive and would be both direct and indirect. They consider that the
benefits would be felt in the medium to long term and would be permanent, with some
short term benefits with regard to employment generated during construction.
As all of the impacts outlined above are expected to be beneficial, the applicants have not
proposed any mitigation measures.
Conclusion on Socio-economic
In conclusion, this section of the ES highlights the numerous benefits which would be
secured as a result of the proposed development and I am satisfied with the applicants’
conclusions. I consider that the proposal would result in significant beneficial
socio-economic impacts, and I therefore have no objections to the proposal in this
regard.
2. Landscape and Visual
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 DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public
space, that public space must be designed to, have a clear role and purpose, responding
to established or proposed local economic, social, cultural and environmental needs,
reflect and enhance the character and identity of the area, form an integral part of, and
provide an appropriate setting for, surrounding developments be attractive, safe,
uncluttered and appropriately lit, be of an appropriate scale, connect to established
38
pedestrian routes and other public spaces and minimise, and make provision for,
maintenance requirements.
Policy DES4 outlines that development which adjoins public space shall be design to
have a strong and positive relationship with that space.
Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard
and soft landscaping provision. Where landscaping is required as part of a development,
it must be of a high quality, reflect and enhance the character of the area, not detract from
safety and security, form an integral part of the development, be easily maintained,
respect adjacent land uses and wherever possible make provision for the creation of new
wildlife habitats.
Policy DES10 development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage
crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime.
Policy UR10 of RSS seeks to ensure that strategies are in place for the design,
management, maintenance and enhancement of public realm and urban greenspace. It
outlines a number of priorities, including enhancing the setting of residential
neighbourhoods, increasing the overall stock of urban trees and improving accessibility
and community safety.
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, outlines the
Government’s commitment to the conservation of the natural heritage such as natural
features. Although it is primarily concerned with the protection of sites of international,
national and regional/local importance, it does confirm that appropriate landscaping can
play an important part in both protecting and enhancing biodiversity.
The applicants have followed the good practice guidelines issues jointly by the Institute of
Environmental Assessment and the Landscape Institute in assessing the landscape and
39
visual impacts of the proposal. The existing landscape and visual features of the site
have been evaluated. The applicants state that the majority of the site has been vacant
for over twenty years, although it has occasionally been used for temporary events and
as a car park. The existing industrial building on the site is considered to be of low visual
quality with derelict concrete hardstanding overgrown by self-seeded scrubland. The
hydraulic tower, towards the north west of the site, is considered to be the only structure
on the site of visual quality. The nature of the current uses on the site are considered to
reduce permeability through the site and exclude public access. The topography of the
site is mainly flat with manmade landscaped bunding adjacent to Broadway and the
Metrolink tramline.
The predicted impacts have been split into two categories: site preparation and
construction; and operation. The visual impacts of construction would be connected
primarily with `tower cranes required to construct the buildings, which, due to the extent
of the site and the phasing are expected to continue over 10-15 years.
The landscape assessment assesses the potential changes to the fabric, character and
quality of the landscape as a result of the proposed development. In undertaking the
landscape assessment of the proposed development, the applicants divided the site into
five landscape character zones: quayside; built form; water zone; scrubland; and
bunding. The current quality of each of these character zones was assessed, and then
the impacts of the proposed built development were predicted. Apart from the quayside
area (where no change was predicted), all areas were predicted to experience an
improvement, ranging from moderate to significant. Such improvements were predicted
due to the high quality of the proposed buildings, the provision of high quality landscaping
and public areas and the removal of low grade planting and its replacement with high
quality planting and public open space.
The applicants’ visual assessment considers the direct impact of the development upon
views of the landscape through intrusion or obstructions, the reaction of viewers who may
40
be affected and the overall impact on visual amenity. It takes into account the visibility of
the proposed development from the surrounding area. The applicants’ assessment is
based on a drawing which sets the maximum heights of buildings within the site. The
applicants have identified a number of significant views into the site and predicted the
impact on these views as a result of the proposed built development. The principle
viewpoints and specific sensitive receptors have been derived from the North West
Regional Assembly’s ‘Strategic Views Along the River Mersey’ guidance and the
previous masterplan studies carried out on the site. The NWRA’s guidance highlights
three key views around the application site: the Lowry, the War Museum and the Ship
Canal itself. It also suggests that the land around Dock 9 requires development to
enhance important views within the Quays. The applicants’ visual assessment takes into
account the visibility of the proposed development from the surrounding area and
establishes a Zone of Visual Intrusion which is indicative of key views from the visual
receptors.
The applicants have predicted that all seven views would benefit from improvements as a
result of the proposed built development, ranging from moderate to substantial
improvements. Such improvements would result from the proposed feature buildings
within the site, the setting that proposed new buildings would provide and the fact that the
proposed buildings are expected to provide a focus and distract from surrounding
existing industrial buildings. Of the three views identified in the NWRA’s study, two would
benefit from a substantial improvement and one (from Centenary Bridge down the Ship
Canal) would benefit from a moderate improvement.
The applicants state the development has, from the outset, been designed to minimise
any adverse landscape and visual impacts, and therefore, the need for mitigation
measures has been minimised. The applicants state that the design of the proposal,
including the siting of taller buildings towards the north of the site, thereby reducing
overshadowing of the public open space adjacent to the waters’ edge and the screening
41
of multi-storey car parks with active frontages, would further minimise any visual impacts
of the proposal.
The applicants conclude that, overall, there would be a positive beneficial effect on the
area arising from the introduction of an integrated high quality design development. Such
impacts are predicted to be permanent and felt in the medium to long term.
Conclusion on Landscape and Visual
Given the nature of the proposed development, it is inevitable that there would be some
impact on landscape and visual aspects of the existing environment. I am however
satisfied that these impacts would be positive and that the development would be an
improvement to the area. I have already discussed the loss of the trees and the impact
this would have on the area in an earlier section of this report, and have no objections to
the loss of existing trees. I consider it necessary to attach a condition requiring the
development to be undertaken in accordance with the drawing showing the maximum
heights of buildings within the site in order to ensure that there would be no additional or
negative impacts as a result of the proposal. Subject to compliance with this condition, I
have no objections to the application in this regard.
3. Transport
Policy A1 requires planning applications for developments which would give rise to
significant transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a
transport assessment and, where appropriate, a travel plan.
Policy A2 requires development proposals to make adequate provision for safe and
convenient access by the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists through the protection and
improvement of key routes.
42
Policy A3 states that the extension to the Metrolink system to the Lowry will be permitted,
and the line of this extension, as shown on the Proposals Map, will be safeguarded.
Policy A5 states that development of bus corridors will be permitted where they are
consistent with regeneration objectives and policies in the UDP.
Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would compromise
highway safety by virtue of traffic generation and access.
Policy A9 states that planning permission will be granted for the Broadway Link
(Broadway to Centenary Way).
The reasoned justification to this policy states that the
Broadway Link will improve access to Salford Quays and Trafford Park for buses,
cyclists, pedestrians and cars and will help to open up several major development
opportunities within this area. In particular, the Broadway Link will support and enable the
development of land at Dock 9, and that the provision of the road is likely to be funded
through the development of the Dock 9 site.
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers,
cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the council’s maximum standards. It also
states that the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
Policy T9 of RSS relates to demand management. It also covers the issue of car parking
standards and states that standards should be more restrictive in urban areas to reflect
local characteristics, such as higher levels of public transport and higher development
density.
Policy RT2 of Draft RSS states that the Highways Agency and local highway authorities
should make best use of existing infrastructure through the development of Route
Management Plans for all routes in the Regional Highway Network. In the Manchester
City Region, network and demand management measures should be used to improve
43
journey time reliability on the M6, M56, M60 and M62 motorways. Plans and strategies
for managing and maintaining the highway network should give a high priority to
improving transport safety and security. In the regional centres and regional towns and
cities, local authorities should develop an integrated approach to managing travel
demand which focuses on the need to reduce the proportion of car borne commuting
during peak periods.
Policy RT6 of Draft RSS states that local authorities should develop a coordinated
approach to parking provision as part of an all-embracing strategy to manage travel
demand. Plans and strategies should incorporate maximum parking standards (parking
for disabled people being the only situation where minimum standards will be
applicable); manage car use by implementing workplace, education and personal travel
plans which should be developed alongside public transport, cycling and pedestrian
network improvements; and provide dedicated and secure parking facilities for cycles
and two wheel motorised vehicles;
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport, outlines the need to promote more
sustainable transport choices, promote accessibility to jobs, shopping and leisure
facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the need to
travel, especially by car. It sets out maximum car parking standards which will assist in
the promotion off sustainable transport choices. The guidance highlights the importance
of walking and cycling as substitutes for short car trips. It also sets out the requirements
for travel plans to help in the delivery of sustainable transport objectives, including
reductions in car usage, reduced traffic speeds and more environmentally friendly
delivery services.
The transportation chapter of the ES provides junction analysis of a number of locations
in the vicinity of the site, including the Eccles New Road and Trafford Road corridors and
three individual junctions.
44
The applicants have concluded that, whilst the existing network is forecast to operate
satisfactorily in the early years following the implementation of the development, by later
years, changes would be required to provide sufficient capacity at certain junctions.
Where existing constraints would allow, the applicants propose a number of junction
improvements. In relation to the M602, the applicants’ analysis has indicated that the
impact due to the proposed development would be limited in comparison to the impact of
background traffic growth. The applicants assert that, due to physical constraints at the
motorway junctions, there would be no practical mitigation measures which would
provide relief to the junctions.
In relation to public transport, the applicants assert that the site is well served by
Metrolink. They state that there is spare capacity in the system, although they
acknowledge that this is limited at certain times of the day. In relation to car parking, the
applicants state that parking within the site will be based on the Council’s maximum car
parking standards.
In order to ensure that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable
impact on the highway network, the applicants propose to provide the Broadway link, as
envisaged in Policy A9 of the UDP prior to first occupation of any of the units within the
proposed development, which I consider to be appropriate.
In accordance with Policy A1, the applicants have prepared a framework travel plan for
the site, which has been produced following discussions with Urban Vision and the
GMPTE. As the application is in outline, the framework travel plan sets out the broad
parameters and will also act as a guide for the production of additional travel plans for
individual plots/uses within the site.
Conclusion on Transport
45
Given the scale of the development, it is inevitable that the proposal would have an
impact on the existing highway network. I have attached a condition requiring the
provision of the Broadway link prior to first occupation of any of the units within the
development, along with a condition requiring the preparation and submission of travel
plans with subsequent applications for the approval of reserved matters. I have also
attached a condition restricting the car parking levels across the site to no more than
4,500, which has been agreed with the applicants and which is significantly below the
Council’s maximum standards. Finally, I have attached a condition requiring the
applicants to submit a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which
will, amongst other things, include details on traffic management. The Highways Agency
has directed that the application can be approved, subject to a number of conditions,
including: the submission of a scheme outlining measures to achieve a target of 45%
non-car modal split (public transport, walking, cycling and taxi) for all trips to the site in
the AM and PM peak hours; the optimisation of junctions along Trafford Road between,
and including, M602 Junction 3 and Pomona Swing Bridge through the implementation of
a traffic control system (SCOOT or MOVA); and the formation of a Media City
Transport Steering Group (MCTSG), which will review the effectiveness of the travel
plans and the measures to achieve the 45% non-car modal split. I am satisfied that these
conditions, in conjunction with the conditions already outlined above, will ensure that
there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the highway network as a result of
the proposed development and I therefore have no objections to the application in this
regard.
4. Ground Conditions
Policy EN14 states that states that development involving reclamation, remediation, or
improvement of derelict, underused or neglected land should include measures to ensure
that physical risks to the public are reduced to acceptable levels, site conditions
appropriate to the proposed use of the land are created, contamination or the land is
46
addressed, in accordance with Policy EN16 and, where appropriate, the existing
ecological value of the site is protected or enhanced.
Policy EN16 states that development proposals on sites known or thought to be
contaminated will require the submission of a site assessment as part of any planning
application, identifying the nature and extent of the contamination involved, the risk it
poses to future users/occupiers of the site, and the practical remedial measures
proposed to deal with the contamination.
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.
EM2 states that plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should encourage the
adoption of sustainable remediation technologies. Where soft end uses (including green
infrastructure, natural habitat or landscape creation) are to be provided on previously
developed sites, appropriate remediation technologies should be considered which
reduce or render harmless any contamination that may be present.
The applicants have undertaken a desk study report, a preliminary intrusive investigation
and a qualitative risk assessment in respect of ground conditions. The risk assessment
reviewed pollutant linkages for potential soil contaminants associated with historical
contaminative land uses, which included dockyards and dockland, railway land, timber
yards, made ground and allotments gardens. The applicants’ investigations revealed that
remedial measures would be necessary in order to prevent an unacceptable risk to the
health of future occupiers and users of the site. They assert that a simple cover layer
would be sufficient to mitigate such potential impacts
47
Conclusions on Ground Conditions
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has commented that the site is
brownfield, and that whilst some of the site’s previous uses have been identified, others
are unclear. He therefore recommends that the current ground conditions of the site are
investigated to establish if there is any risk of either ground contamination of gas
infiltration to the proposed buildings, and that, given that the site is to be developed in
phases, this should be done on a phase by phase basis. I have therefore attached a
condition requiring the undertaking of site investigations prior to the commencement of
the development of each phase. I am therefore satisfied that, subject to compliance with
this condition, there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact as a result of the
existing ground conditions and I consider that the application accords with the above
policies.
5. Water Quality
Policy EN18 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on surface or ground water.
Policy EQ3 of RSS states that measures to improve and sustain the quality of the
Region’s rivers, canals, lakes and sea will be promoted. Local planning authorities
should coordinate their strategies and programmes to, inter alia, maintain or improve the
quality of ground or surface waters, avoids development which poses an unacceptable
risk to the quality of ground or surface water, ensure that adequate foul and surface water
provision and infrastructure is available to serve new development, ensure that adequate
pollution control measures are in place to minimise risks of water pollution and locate
development in locations where the necessary sewerage infrastructure will be available
or can be provided.
48
Within this chapter of the ES, the applicants assert that during the construction and, to a
lesser extent, during the subsequent operation of the site, there would be a number of
activities which would have the potential to impact upon controlled waters. The canal is
considered to be most vulnerable during the initial three years of construction, although
impacts could occur over the short to medium term for each of the three phases. Such
impacts include disturbance of potentially contaminated land, generation of surface
runoff containing high suspended solids, spillages of chemicals and piling. In relation to
the operational phase, the applicants state that impacts such as surface runoff and piles
providing pathways for migration are more likely to occur over the long term.
In relation to the impacts as a result of construction activities, the applicants consider it
unlikely that the construction works would have significant impacts on the groundwater
flow or levels in the local area. Whilst it is likely that the proposed buildings within the site
would have basements or underground parking, these are considered unlikely to extend
below the existing water table. They also state that any pollution arising from the site
would be negligible. Leaks and spills during construction could have serious effects on
water quality if they were allowed to occur, but can be avoided through good site practice
and management. Therefore, with the implementation of a CEMP, the risk of such
incidents would be low. In terms of the operational phase, the applicants state that there
should not be any significant change to groundwater levels and that there may be a
benefit regarding improvement of groundwater quality. They state that operational
drainage is not anticipated to pose a significant pollution threat to groundwater and that
the risk of pollution of the underlying aquifer would be considerably reduced compared to
that during construction. The operational phase would be likely to result in an increase in
runoff and a reduction in infiltration. The applicants do however assert that operational
drainage is not anticipated to pose a significant pollution threat to surface waters.
Finally, the applicants state that with the proposed mitigation measures discussed above,
the risk of pollution of surface waters is predicted to be low risk and low significance and
the residual impact is therefore predicted to be very low. They assert that the risks to
49
groundwater would be relatively insignificant in comparison and that the residual impact
would not be significantly different to the current situation.
Conclusion on Water Quality
I have not received any objections from the Environment Agency in respect of water
resources. They have recommended that conditions be attached requiring surface water
drainage to be passed through an oil interceptor prior to being discharged into any
watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system and the submission of a scheme
for the disposal of foul and surface waters. The condition requiring the submission of a
CEMP will also assist in ensuring that any impacts on water quality as a result of the
proposed development are minimised. Subject to these conditions, I am satisfied that
there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on water resources, and I consider
that the application accords with Policy EN18.
6. Air Quality
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)
will not be permitted unless they include mitigation measures commensurate with the
scale and impact of the development.
Policy EQ2 of RSS states that development and local transport plans should include air
quality criteria and proposals to reduce or reverse the growth in road traffic and
encourage greater use of public transport, walking and cycling and be linked to air quality
action plans.
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control, states that the planning
system seeks to complement the suite of wider pollution controls. It seeks to advise on
any consideration of the quality of land, air, water and potential impacts arising from
50
development, with the aim of ensuring that new development which may give rise to
pollution either directly or indirectly will not, as far as possible, affect other uses and
developments.
The application site is not located within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and
as such, enjoys reasonable air quality, particularly for an urban location. The applicants
have assessed both the construction and operations impacts on air quality impacts as a
result of the proposed development. They assert that construction impacts are most likely
to result from on-site construction activities and from vehicles serving the site, whilst
operational impacts are most likely to result from on-site plant and equipment, on-site
activities and from road traffic associated with residents and workers. Of these potential
impacts, the applicants state that the impact from road traffic associated with the
development is likely to be the most significant.
In undertaking the assessment, the applicants had regard to the existing baseline air
quality, assessed the potential impacts arising from the scheme, compared the predicted
impacts with the relevant air quality objectives, identified mitigation options (where
appropriate), identified residual impacts and outlined their significance.
In relation to the impacts on air quality as a result of construction, the applicants confirm
that significant earthmoving activities would be necessary, which would be likely to result
in significant emissions of dust if unmitigated. However, the applicants assert that all
construction impacts would be temporary in nature and would therefore have no long
term impact on local air quality.
As discussed above, the applicants assert that, during the operational phase of the
proposed development, the main air quality impacts would occur as a result of increased
traffic movements and the redistribution of road traffic in the area caused by employees,
residents and guests using the site. In addition, there would be two major changes to the
local highway network during the time of the redevelopment of the site. These are a road
51
linking The Quays road to Broadway, which would run through the site, and the
Broadway link which, as discussed in the transport section of this report, would connect
Pacific Way to Centenary Way, to the west of the application site. The applicants have
confirmed that both of these would be completed prior to the completion of the first phase
of the development, and that the Broadway link would be completed prior to occupation
of any of the units on the site. The applicants’ assessment states that the predicted
concentrations for all pollutants would be substantially below the relevant Air Quality
Strategy (AQS) objectives, with no exceedences in either 2013 or 2023. The
applicants state that the two proposed link roads would provide relief to many of the local
roads, adjacent to which potentially sensitive receptors are located. As a result of the
provision of these two roads, the applicants assert that a significant proportion of road
traffic on the local road network would be redistributed along Broadway, onto Pacific Way
and along the new Broadway link to Centenary Way, adjacent to which there are very few
sensitive receptors. One of the receptors identified in the ES is in close proximity to
Broadway, and is therefore expected to experience the most significant changes in
pollutant concentrations. However, the applicants confirm that the predicted
concentrations would still be below current AQS objectives. Where exceedences of the
AQS have been predicted, the applicants state that such exceedences would occur in
any event, even without the proposed development and the two additional roads in place
(the ‘do nothing’ scenario), and that the difference between the ‘do nothing’ scenario
and the ‘with scheme’ scenario would be virtually negligible.
Turning to on-site activities, the applicants state that at this stage, given that the
application is in outline, the precise details of fixed plant and equipment are not known.
They do however state that the plant and equipment which would be installed would be
typical of a major mixed commercial and residential scheme and would conform to
modern standards. They do not therefore anticipate that there would be significant
pollutant emissions from fixed plant and equipment.
52
The applicants have proposed a number of mitigation measures, including appropriate
cleaning of the public highway, the implementation of a public relations service, wheel
washing, minimal movement of material within the site, dampening down of stockpiles of
dusty materials during dry weather, regular inspections for spillage of dusty materials,
limiting access into the site to a single location and having appropriate speed limits
across the site over unmade surfaces.
The applicants assert that the residual impact of the construction phase of the proposals
(that is with an appropriate code of practice in place to ensure the above mitigation
measures are in place) would be minor adverse and that the residual impact of the
operational phase of the proposals (that is with the two proposed roads in place) would
range from minor adverse, through to neutral and to minor beneficial, depending on the
particular pollutant. The applicants do state however that the minor adverse impact
predicted has been assessed against an objective that has not been established by
regulation. The applicants therefore conclude that the potential air quality impact from
road traffic would be broadly neutral.
Conclusion on Air Quality
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has assessed the information
submitted by the applicants in relation to air quality. He has commented that the
proposed Broadway Link would improve air quality on Eccles New Road by providing an
alternative route and taking traffic off this road. However, he also comments that
increased congestion at other junctions in the vicinity of the site could possibly lead to
poorer air quality in these areas. He also recommends that minimal car parking should be
provided within the site to minimise traffic growth, encourage more non-car trips and
lower pollution levels. I have already discussed the issue of car parking and have
recommended that a condition to be attached to the permission restricting the number of
car parking spaces across the site to below the maximum standards contained within the
UDP. I am satisfied that this will help in lowering pollution levels.
53
In relation to construction, the Strategic Director comments that there would be short
term air quality impacts from ground works and general construction activities, which
would generate dust. He recommends that careful environmental management would be
required in order to mitigate dust and help reduce emissions. This should include
measures such as dust sheeting, regular maintenance and management of
plant/machinery and vehicles, switching off engines when stationary, the location of plant
away from residential areas where possible, no burning on site and trained on-site
personnel responsible for pollution issues. I am satisfied that these issues can be dealt
with through the CEMP and, as discussed above, I have attached a condition requiring a
CEMP.
Turning to the operational part of the development, the Strategic Director is satisfied that
the probably pollution impacts from road traffic have been assessed correctly. He is of
the opinion that the Broadway link and junction improvements would be beneficial and
would help to reduce traffic pollution, and that the successful implementation of a travel
plan would also help to encourage people making transport choices that avoid using the
car.
In addition to the CEMP, provision of the Broadway link and restrictions on car parking
within the site, he has also recommended that the design of the buildings be assessed
against BREEAM standards, the junction improvements be implemented and that, upon
the submission of each reserved matters application, the air quality assessment be
reviewed against the existing air quality standards at the time of submission. Such a
review would need to make recommendations for any additional measures to minimise
the impact of air quality.
In light of the above comments, and subject to compliance with the conditions outlined
above, I am satisfied that, in accordance with Policy EN17, any impacts on air quality as a
result of the proposed development would not be unacceptably detrimental.
54
7. Noise
Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or
contribute towards a significant increase in pollution by reason of noise or vibration will
not be permitted unless they include mitigation measures commensurate with the scale
and impact of the development.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise provides advice on how the
planning system can be used to minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing
unreasonable restrictions on development. It outlines some of the main considerations
which local planning authorities should take into account when determining planning
applications for development which will either generate noise or be exposed to existing
noise sources. For new developments which would introduce noise into an area, PPG24
confirms that it is appropriate to continue using previously established assessment
routines.
The applicants have assessed both construction and operational impacts. They state that
construction impacts would arise from on-site construction activities and from vehicles
serving the site construction. They predict that operational impacts would arise from
on-site plant and equipment, on-site activities and road traffic associated with residents
and workers during the operational phase. Of these potential impacts, the applicants
state that the impact from road traffic associated with the development is likely to be the
most significant. The applicants also identify a number of land uses/activities surrounding
the site which may cause noise impacts to future residents of the proposed development,
depending on their exact location. These include industrial noise from the south, noise
from the Lowry centre and noise from the development itself.
In relation to construction impacts, the applicants predict that the potential noise impacts
on the external environment from plant working on the site would be low. They do
55
however predict that, without mitigation, there would be the potential for significant
impacts on residents at the closest sensitive receptor (the NV Buildings). However, the
applicants point out that all potential construction impacts would be temporary in nature
and would have no long terms impact on noise in the area.
Turning to road traffic impacts during the operational phase of the development, the
applicants have considered the impacts of the proposed two new roads which would be
constructed. The applicants state that, upon the completion of the first phase of the
proposed development, there would be increases in noise along Broadway due to the
addition of development traffic. Such changes are considered to be significant and would
have medium to high adverse impacts. After 2013, the applicants state that noise
reductions would occur on a large proportion of the local road network due to the
relocation of a large proportion of traffic onto Broadway. These impacts have been
predicted to be slight to highly beneficial. Finally, in 2023, the applicants’ assessments
indicate that, when the development is complete, development traffic would result in
noise increases on the majority of the roads within the local network, but such increases
would be insignificant and are likely to be imperceptible.
In terms of on-site activities, the applicants state that at this stage, given that the
application is in outline, the precise details of fixed plant and equipment are not known.
They do however state that the plant and equipment which would be installed would be
typical of a major mixed commercial and residential scheme and would conform to
modern standards. They do not therefore anticipate that there would be significant
pollutant emissions from fixed plant and equipment. Other on-site noise sources
identified by the applicants include people visiting and using the facilities within the
development, although they assert that, with suitable licensing controls, there would not
be significant noise impacts.
The applicants have proposed a number of mitigation measures to minimise the impacts
they have identified. These include the use of best practicable means during
56
construction, switching off plant and equipment when not in use for long periods of time,
establishing criteria for undertaking significantly noisy works or works which would cause
significant vibration which would affect nearby receptors, the use of low noise emission
plan where possible, the use of temporary noise screens and regular plant maintenance.
They state that, with appropriate design and construction, the mitigation of operational
noise would not be required.
Conclusion on Noise
In order to deal with some of the impacts highlighted above, the Strategic Director of
Environmental Services has recommended that a number of conditions be attached to
the permission. These include: the submission of schemes detailing acoustic and
ventilation protection measures necessary to protect residential elements of the
development from external noise sources; the restriction of noise from plant and
equipment on site; the submission of details of noise from wind screens; the submission
of details of delivery hours and the submission of assessments relating to the impact of
the studios and production facilities; and the submission of a scheme relating to the
impact of the proposed demolition and construction on nearby sensitive properties.
The CEMP will deal with issues of noise and vibration during construction. I have
attached conditions relating to the other issues the Strategic Director has raised. I
therefore consider that, subject to compliance with these conditions, the application
accords with Policy EN17.
8. Wind
Policy DES5 states that tall buildings will be permitted where there would be no
unacceptable impact on microclimate, for example in terms of wind speed or direction.
57
In accordance with this policy, the applicants have undertaken an assessment of wind
within the application site as part of the ES. Although the application is in outline, and the
exact height and design of the buildings have not yet been determined, it is anticipated
that the site will be developed to include tall buildings. The illustrative material supplied
by the applicants provides an indication of the height and scale of the buildings proposed
to be developed within the site. Many of the buildings are anticipated to be between three
and ten storeys, with occasional towers of up to 40 storeys.
The wind report refers to the whole of the application site in general terms. It does
however provide more details on the first phase, as the applicants assert that only this
phase has been developed to sufficient detail to allow a meaningful assessment,
including the formulation of mitigation measures, to be undertaken. The assessment
provides a qualitative review of the likely pedestrian level wind flows at the site.
The applicants assert that current wind conditions within the site are likely to be deemed
suitable for the current pedestrian uses, which mainly involve pedestrians accessing
existing buildings. The wind conditions off the site are considered to be quite blustery, in
particular along The Quays road, due to the southeasterly winds accelerating between
the NV buildings. The applicants identify some areas within phase 1 which would, without
mitigation, experience significant accelerated pedestrian level winds due to the funnelling
of the prevailing winds between proposed buildings and would therefore only be suitable
for fast walking (ie. walking normally associated with business activities rather than
leisurely strolling). Other areas are identified as being unsuitable for the general public.
The applicants assert that similar pedestrian level wind conditions would be expected
around the rest of the site, on the basis that they would have a similar massing and
orientation to the buildings within phase 1 which have been assessed in more detail.
In order to reduce the predicted impact of the proposed development on the pedestrian
level environment, the applicants propose a number of mitigation measures. These
include the planting of deciduous trees (approximately between 3m and 5m in height
58
depending on the precise area) and the erection of porous screens of approximately 2m
in height. The impact of wind can also be mitigated through the detailed design of the
corner geometry of the buildings to be constructed within the site. Subject to these
mitigation measures, the applicants assert that the proposed development is unlikely to
have any significant detrimental impact on the pedestrian level wind environment. Finally,
the applicants recommend that more detailed studies be undertaken to assess the
development’s impact on the pedestrian level wind environment at a suitable stage in the
design process.
Conclusion on Wind
The work undertaken by the applicant has revealed that there would be the potential for
significant detrimental impacts on the pedestrian level wind environment as a result of the
proposed development. They have however suggested that a number of mitigation
measures could be implemented to reduce such impacts to a satisfactory level. Given
that the precise heights of the buildings across the site is not known at this stage, and
that the applicants are not seeking approval for such details even for phase 1, I consider
it necessary to attach a condition requiring the submission of further detailed wind
assessments, including mitigation measures where necessary, with each application for
the approval of reserved matters. This will ensure that the impact of the proposal on the
wind environment can be satisfactorily considered when the details of each phase are
known and that mitigation measures can be appropriately designed and implemented.
Subject to compliance with this condition, I have no objections to the application n this
regard.
9. Archaeology
Policy CH5 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that
would have an unacceptable impact on an ancient monument, or site or feature of
archaeological importance, or its setting.
59
Policy ER3 of RSS requires local planning authorities to identify, protect, conserve and,
where appropriate, enhance, the built heritage of the Region in their plans, policies and
proposals.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology and Planning, sets out the
Government’s policy on archaeological remains on land and how they should be
preserved or recorded. It presumes in favour of preservation, especially where nationally
important remains exist. However, it acknowledges that cases involving remains of lesser
importance will not always be so clear cut. It advises that local planning authorities will
need to weigh the relative importance of archaeology against the need for the proposed
development.
The applicants have undertaken a desk-based study and a site inspection. The aim of
this aspect of the ES was to identify, as far as reasonably possible, the nature of the
archaeological resource to enable informed recommendations to be made for the future
treatment of any remains on the site. The applicants have confirmed that there are no
listed buildings within the application site and no part of the site is within a conservation
area. Attention is drawn to the hydraulic tower, which is located to the west of the site. As
discussed above, the tower is not listed. The Council’s Conservation Officer has
approached English Heritage to discuss the possibility of listing the tower. However, the
tower was not considered to be of such architectural or historic importance to merit
listing. The structure is however included on the Council’s list of locally important
buildings. The assessment identifies the possibility for evidence of prehistoric activity
within the study area, which have the potential to be of regional rarity. It also states that
alluvial deposits within the study area containing prehistoric and Anglo-Saxon/mediaeval
stray finds could possibly be of regional importance. All other remains within the site are
considered to be of local significance. The assessment did not identify any remains of
national importance within the site, which would merit preservation in situ.
60
The applicants assert that the proposed development is likely to have a positive impact
on the hydraulic tower by improving its setting and making it more accessible to the
public. Given that the proposed development would require groundworks, particularly for
areas of car parking, the applicants state that it is likely that this would result in intrusions
into alluvial deposits and possibly into underlying sands and gravels, which have the
potential to contain early remains. I consider that this would therefore result in a negative
and permanent impact on archaeological remains. However, given the applicants’
assertions that none of the remains are of national significance, and only some are likely
to be regionally important, appropriate mitigation measures could adequately deal with
these impacts. The applicants have suggested a number of mitigation measures within
this section of the ES. These include an archaeological watching brief, evaluation by trial
trenching, or a combination of the two. The applicants recommend that the precise
mitigation strategy be determined in consultation with the Assistant County Archaeologist
(at the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit).
Conclusion on Archaeology
I have not received any objections from the GMAU in respect of the applicants’
proposals. The GMAU has confirmed that it is satisfied with the applicants’ provisional
recommendations for mitigation and requests that archaeological interests within the site
be secured through a condition attached to the permission requiring the implementation
of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of
investigation. Subject to compliance with this condition, which is worded to reflect the fact
that the site would be developed in phases, I am satisfied that there would be no
unacceptable detrimental impacts on archaeology, and consider that the proposal
complies with the above policies.
10. Alternatives
61
In circumstances where applicants have considered alternatives to the proposed
development, the EIA Regulations require the reporting of such alternatives to the
development of a scheme within an ES. In this instance, two alternatives were
considered. These are the ‘do nothing’ option and the option to proceed on the basis of
the existing outline permission. The former would mean allowing the site to remain as it
is, which would result in some of the site remaining un-used and the remainder used for
surface car parking or temporary storage. The applicants state that there would be some
benefit to visitors to the Quays as the car parking element would remain. They do
however assert that there are compelling reasons not to follow this option, as the
contribution to the local economy would be minimal and would be counteracted by the
poor image of the site, which, the applicants state, would detract from attractions such as
the Lowry. Public access to the waterfront would be limited. Finally, the applicants claim
that this option would represent a lost opportunity, given the site’s brownfield nature and
its accessible location. They conclude that not developing the site for a mixture of uses
would have a negative impact on the regeneration of the area.
The second alternative – proceeding on the basis of the existing outline permission –
would be possible as the submission of reserved matters has been extended to the end
of October 2008. That application proposed a mixture of uses similar to those proposed
by this application, albeit on a smaller scale. The applicants state that although the extant
permission provides a benchmark for the redevelopment of the site, there are good
reasons for favouring the current proposals, which take on board the BBC’s requirements
and propose higher density development and a finer urban grain, along with significant
infrastructure improvements. The applicants assert that the current proposals have
evolved with the changes to policies for the area and would provide a better platform to
attract knowledge-based industries to the site.
The applicants have also considered a number of alternatives to the design of the
development. These have already been discussed briefly above, but comprise a
masterplan which was drawn up before the BBC became involved in the site and which
62
proposed lower densities and less emphasis on knowledge-based industries and media
facilities.
Conclusion on Alternatives
On the basis of the above information, I am satisfied that the applicants have complied
with the statutory requirements in relation to the consideration of alternatives to the
current proposals. I am of the opinion that the development currently proposed,
represents an entirely appropriate form of development, subject to all the comments
made above in respect of all the issues raised by the application.
Other Issues
1. Planning Obligations
Policy H8 states that planning permission will only be granted for housing development
where adequate provision is made for formal and informal open space and its
maintenance over a 20-year period.
Policy R2 seeks to ensure that all households are within set distances of a range of
facilities, and that there is at least 0.73ha of high quality managed sports pitches per
1,000 population, 0.25ha of equipped children’s playspace per 1,000 population, and
adequate amenity open space.
The Draft Planning Obligations SPD can only be afforded very little weight in the
determination of planning applications, given the number of objections received. It does
however provide an indication of the direction of the Council’s policies on planning
obligations and it is therefore considered necessary to discuss its implications in relation
to this application. The draft SPD requires applicants to make financial contributions
towards a number of areas, including public open space, public realm, infrastructure and
63
heritage, affordable housing, climate change and training programmes for construction
workers. Paragraph 4.16 of the document states that the need for a planning obligation
must be weighed together with all other material planning considerations, including any
positive benefits of the development, in determining whether planning permission should
be granted. It states that in exceptional circumstances, the Council may consider that the
benefits from a development outweigh the need for mitigation and may waive or reduce
contributions.
Policy MC:UK 9 of the MediaCity:UK and Quays Point Planning Guidance states that all
developments on the application site will be required to contribute proportionately to the
required high level of infrastructure necessary to serve the overall site and cross refers to
the aforementioned Planning Obligations SPD.
In relation to open space, the Draft SPD identifies the financial contribution that the
Council will seek if a commuted sum is to be paid rather than actual provision being made
by the developer, and this equates to £540 per bed space, which includes capital and
maintenance ( £324 capital contribution and £216 maintenance). As this application is
in outline, the number of bedspaces is unknown at this stage. It is however possible to
estimate the likely number of bedspaces generated by the proposed development, based
on an average of 2.5 bedspaces per residential unit. If this figure is used, the level of
provision would equate to: 4.104ha of sports pitches, 1.406ha of children’s equipped
playspace and 2.249ha of amenity/informal open space. The applicants have confirmed
that 1.82ha of amenity space would be provided within the site, which will include areas
such as pocket parks and squares. A 1.6ha waterside piazza area would be provided
within the first phase of the development. The applicants have confirmed that they would
be responsible for the management and maintenance of these areas. I have attached
conditions relating to the provision of these areas of amenity space, proportionate to the
number of residential properties within each phase and reflecting the amount of amenity
space the applicants can provide within the site.
64
The applicants do not propose to provide sports pitches or children’s equipped play
space within the site. This would therefore, under normal circumstances, necessitate the
payment of a financial contribution towards the provision and maintenance of such areas
of open space outside the site, which would equate to £2,749,402.50. There are however
a number of reasons why the applicants are not being requested to make such a
contribution in this instance. As discussed above, the scheme includes a 1.6ha waterside
piazza area which would be an integral element of the scheme, and which would be
provided within the first phase of the development. The provision of this area would be
secured by separate arrangements and its provision is not therefore required by a
condition attached to the permission. In considering this issue, it is also essential to note
that the NWDA has resolved to invest up to £30 million, in a scheme totalling some £460
million, in key public realm and public infrastructure elements within the first phase of the
proposed development. The Agency considers such investment in this project to be
essential in order to maximise the substantial economic benefits and creative and digital
sector growth which would be stimulated by the proposals. The Agency's investment
would be focused upon those infrastructure elements which would be publicly accessible
and is expected to include contributions towards: the enhancement of the public transport
connectivity of the site with the regional centre and the wider city region (notably
prospective Metrolink improvements); better pedestrian connectivity of the site to and
from the Trafford side of the Ship Canal for workers and visitors to mediacity:uk (namely
a new pedestrian bridge over the Canal); a principal focal point and external space to
encourage networking, interchange of information and exchange of ideas between
different individuals and businesses (the piazza); and the 'covered' public realm
adjoining the main studios complex ( the Open Centre). It can therefore be seen that
the amount of investment which would be made towards the public realm, open space
and infrastructure projects would be significantly more than the financial contribution
towards public open space which would normally be required. Having regard to the Draft
SPD where it states that that in exceptional circumstances, the Council may consider that
the benefits from a development outweigh the need for mitigation and may waive or
reduce contributions, I consider that in this instance, the amount of investment which the
65
NWDA would make, and the benefits that such investment would bring to the site, the
surrounding area and the city as a whole, outweighs the need to require the applicants to
make a financial contribution towards the provision of public open space.
The Draft SPD also seeks to secure financial contributions to public realm, infrastructure
and heritage, equating to £1,250 per dwelling in this part of the Regional Centre. This
would give a total figure for the proposed development of £2,811,250. However, any
public realm works undertaken by the developer could be offset against that financial
contribution. As discussed above, a significant amount of public realm and infrastructure
works would be undertaken as part of the proposals, which I consider would outweigh the
need for the above contribution.
I have already discussed the provision of affordable housing above, and have concluded
that, given the large amount of investment and the level of public realm and infrastructure
that would be provided within the site, the applicants are not required to provide
affordable housing in this instance.
As discussed above, the ES identifies that the proposal would have high levels of energy
efficiency, and would incorporate renewable energy provision. This would preclude the
need for any financial contribution to tree planting in order to offset climate change. The
information submitted by the applicants indicates that trees would be planted within the
site. Issues relating to resource conservation will be discussed in more detail below, but I
am satisfied with this element of the proposal.
The Draft SPD encourages developers to provide or contribute to accredited training
programmes for construction workers. Where this does not happen, a financial
contribution to the Salford Construction Partnership is recommended. The applicants
have commented that the proposals would result in the creation of in the region of 15,000
jobs in addition to training opportunities. Clearly, this would represent a significant
economic benefit to the city. In view of this, and the other benefits and investment
66
highlighted above, I do not consider it necessary to require the applicants to make a
contribution towards training for construction workers in this instance.
2. Resource Conservation
Policy EN22 states that development proposals of this scale will only be permitted where
it can be demonstrated that the impact on the conservation of non-renewable resources,
and on the local and global environments, has been minimised as far as practicable and
that full consideration has been given to the use of realistic renewable energy options,
and such measures have been incorporated into the development where practicable.
Chapter 15 of the Environmental Statement states that renewable energy resources will
be provided as an integral part of the proposals, including the use of photovoltaic panels
and wind turbines, and refers to the provision of energy efficient buildings (meeting
BREEAM standards as a minimum), sustainable drainage, the use of combined heat
and power, and the planting of trees. These are all to be encouraged, and it will be
important to ensure that they are secured through any reserved matters applications. I
have therefore attached a condition requiring the submission of details with each
reserved matters application demonstrating that the development has sought to reduce
the impact on the supply of non-renewable resources and that full consideration has
been given to the use of realistic renewable energy options and incorporated where
practicable. I have also attached a condition requiring the applicants to seek to achieve a
BREEAM rating of ‘very good’ for all the buildings within the site.
3. Fume Extraction
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has commented that the mix of uses
proposed within the site, the high density of development and the combination of
sensitive and non-sensitive uses could impact on the amenity of future residents of the
site due to fumes and odours. He has recommended that a condition be attached
67
requiring details of fume extraction systems for all A3, A4 and A5 uses within the site. I
have therefore attached a condition requiring the submission of such details with
subsequent applications for the approval of reserved matters involving A3, A4 and A5
uses.
4. Lighting
The Strategic Director or Environmental Services has commented that illumination of the
whole site and any effects that may result will need to be considered in detail to ensure
that such lighting is adequate, appropriate and sensitively located, as inappropriate or
badly aimed lighting can cause severe reductions in amenity. I have therefore attached a
condition requiring the submission of schemes for external lighting relating to commercial
uses.
5. Issues raised in the letters of representation
I shall deal with each of the issues raised in the letter in turn below:
The applicants have not referred to UDP Policy A3 which safeguards the route of the
tram.
I acknowledge that the applicants have not referred explicitly to the above policy in
their submissions. The contents of Policy A3 have however been taken account in
the consideration of the application and have been discussed above.

If the Metrolink extension is approved in the location shown on the masterplan, the
applicants should provide a covered walkway and travellator onto Pier 8
It should be noted that this application does not seek approval for the Metrolink
extension, and its location on the Masterplan is, at this stage, illustrative. Any
68
extension to the Metrolink would be dealt with separately. It should also be noted that
an extension to Metrolink in the location shown on the Masterplan would bring
Metrolink closer to Pier 8 than at present. Consideration may be given to a covered
walkway or travellator in the future.

Bus and boat routes should be shown on the proposals and utilised in order to ease
congestion
The use of non-car modes of travel to, from and around the site has been considered
by the applicants as part of the Transport Assessment

The application is contrary to UDP Policy A3
As discussed above, Policy A3 states that the extension to the Metrolink to the Lowry
will be permitted and the line of the extension will be safeguarded. This application
would not prejudice the provision of the extension of the Metrolink to the Lowry, and I
do not therefore agree that the application is contrary to Policy A3.

The outline application relies on the MediaCity:UK guidance which is not adopted
I acknowledge that the above guidance is not adopted. I do not however consider
that this application relies on the document. There are a number of policies in the
UDP, not least Policy MX1, which support the type of development currently
proposed on the site.

The extent of the proposed development will add pressure on the existing road
network
I recognise that the proposed development would result in an increase in traffic on
the surrounding road network. However, as discussed in the transport section of this
69
report, I am satisfied that it would not result on an unacceptable detrimental impact
on the highway network or highway safety.

There is a gap in the pedestrian link along the Ship Canal water frontage
One of the plans contained within the design and access statement shows the
movement strategy through the site. There is however a gap in the pedestrian route
along the Ship Canal walkway. The applicants have confirmed that this in an error
and that the pedestrian route would be continuous.

The Lowry Outlet Mall provides the main shopping facility and therefore any retail
within the application site should be local small scale convenience retail to serve that
immediate market.
The proposed level of retail development within the site would be to meet a local
need generated as a result of the proposed development. I have discussed the retail
element’s compliance with the relevant policies in a separate section of this report,
and have concluded that the level of retail floorspace proposed is acceptable.

The skyline should cascade down to the water front
The information submitted by the applicants shows that the heights of buildings would
decrease from Broadway to Dock 9, adjacent to the water’s edge.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The proposals have been formulated in close consultation with representatives from the
Council, Urban Vision, the URC and other consultees. This has resulted in a high quality
70
mixed use scheme which would bring about significant benefits for the surrounding area,
Salford as a whole and the Regional Centre.
CONCLUSION
The proposals represent an effective use of a previously-developed site within the
Regional Centre. The application would assist in securing the redevelopment of what is
currently an under-used and generally unattractive site in a highly prominent location
within Salford Quays. A broad mix of uses would be proposed within the site and it is
envisaged that this development would stimulate the redevelopment of other areas within
the mediacity:uk area for similar uses. The mix of uses proposed are consistent with UDP
policies MX1, S2, ST11, RSS policies EC8, DP1 and UR1 and the draft Media City
planning guidance. Such a mix would create a diverse and sustainable development,
which would be appropriate given the site’s location within the Regional Centre. The
information submitted with the application indicates that the design of the development
would be of a high quality, with significant investment in public realm, open space and
infrastructure. A number of off-site highway works, including the provision of a Broadway
link, would also be secured as part of this development. The likely predicted impacts of
the proposal on the environment have been assessed and I am satisfied that, subject to a
number of conditions, there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the
environment as a result of this application.
Although the applicants are not proposing to provide any affordable housing within the
site and are not providing a financial contribution towards public open space, the
proposal would involve a significant amount of investment in a number of public realm
and infrastructure works, which would be of considerable benefit to not only this site, but
the city as a whole and the region in general. I am of the opinion that the amount of
investment involved in such works outweighs the need to provide any affordable housing
within the site and any financial contribution to public open space. I therefore recommend
that, in accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004, the application be approved.
71
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. No development shall be started on any one phase or unit of development within the site until full
details of the following reserved matters for that phase or unit of development have been submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
a) appearance;
b) landscaping; and
c) scale.
2. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of ten years
beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later than the
expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of approval on
different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development of any phase or unit of development within the site,
samples of all external facing and roofing materials for that phase shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the
details as approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby approved
shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the phasing detailed on Page 3 of the Addendum to the
Environmental Statement (entitled Response to Initial Planning and Design Comments, September
2006 prepared by Peel Media Ltd) and the maximum floorspaces/unit numbers within each of the
phases as specified on Page 3 of the above document shall not be exceeded.
5. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby approved
shall not exceed the heights shown on the Development Heights plan (Drawing No. 6998/01_08 of the
Design and Access Statement September 2006 prepared by Peel Media Ltd).
6. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the maximum gross floor
areas/unit numbers within the development including any internal alterations shall not exceed:
B1 Business: 119,120sqm
Studios/Production Space: 23,225sqm
Live/work units: 4,280sqm
Residential: 2,249 units
Retail: 2,415sqm
Leisure: 3,176sqm
72
Hotel: 300 bedrooms
7. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the first phase of the development
hereby approved shall be undertaken within the boundaries shown on drawing no. 6998/01_07 Rev A.
8. Any application for the approval of reserved matters (other than those only relating to landscaping
alone) shall be accompanied by a review of the air quality assessment (contained within Chapter 11 of
the Environmental Statement dated July 2006 prepared by Peel Media Ltd) against the current air
quality standards at the time of the submission of the applications for the approval of reserved matters.
Such a statement shall provide full details of mitigation measures to address the air quality issues
identified, and shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved mitigation
measures identified in the assessment shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any of the
residential units within the site covered by the relevant application for the approval of reserved matters,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
9. Any application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by a site investigation report
(the Report). The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground
contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to
receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks
to human health and controlled waters, as well as groundwater and surface waters associated on and off
the site that may be affected by the development. The investigation shall also address the implications
of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures,
on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological
systems and property. The investigation shall where appropriate include a risk assessment and an
options appraisal including the remedial strategy.
The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including its risk
assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial strategy.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to
the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works
were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
10. Any application for the approval of reserved matters (other those only relating to landscaping alone)
shall be accompanied by an assessment of noise. Such assessments should follow PPG24 guidelines
towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road network and should also assess noise from
non-residential uses within the site. The assessments shall identify all noise attenuation and alternative
ventilation measures to reduce the impact of noise on the residential properties on site and achieve the
requirements of BS8233:1999 for internal noise levels, and shall be approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Consideration shall also be given to achieving adequate Summer Cooling and
Rapid Ventilation. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the approved
noise attenuation and alternative ventilation measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation of
any of the residential units within the site covered by the relevant application for the approval of
reserved matters and thereafter retained.
11. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, noise from fixed plant and
equipment on the site (LAeq,T) shall not exceed the background level (LA90T) by more than -5dB as
measured at the boundary of the nearest residential premises. 'T' is specified as any 1 hour time period
73
between the hours 07.00 to 23.00hrs and is specified as any 5 minutes time period outside of the
specified times.
12. Any application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by a wind assessment. Such
assessment shall include details of the likely impacts of the development on pedestrian level wind
conditions and terrace and balcony level wind environments within the site to which the application for
the approval of reserved matters relates and within the site covered by this permission. Such assessment
shall also provide full details of measures to mitigate such impacts, along with timescales for the
implementation of such measures. The assessment shall be approved in writing prior to the
commencement of the development of the site to which the application for the approval of reserved
matters relates, and the mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
timescale for implementation.
13. Prior to the erection of any wind screening devices within the site, an acoustic assessment shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such assessment shall
investigate the potential of the wind screening devices and the buildings within the site, under different
climatic or weather conditions, to create tonal or harmonic noise and the impact of such noise on
residential properties, and identify mitigation measures to prevent the occurrence of any tonal or
harmonic noise. The approved measures shall be implemented in full prior to the erection of the wind
screening devices assessed, and retained thereafter.
14. Any application for the approval of reserved matters (other than those relating to landscaping alone)
shall be accompanied by details of the delivery hours to, and operating hours of, all non-residential uses
within the site covered by the relevant application for the approval of reserved matters. The details shall
be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior first occupation of any building within the
site to which the details relate. The non-residential uses shall be operated in accordance with the
approved details, and there shall be no deliveries to non-residential premises outside the approved
hours, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
15. Any application for the approval of reserved matters (other than those relating to landscaping alone)
shall be accompanied by details of the provision of recycling facilities within the relevant part of the
site. Such details shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
commencement of development within the site to which the application for the approval of reserved
matters relates. Such provision shall be made available prior to the first occupation and use of any part
of the development within the site to which the application for reserved matters relates and retained
thereafter.
16. Any proposals for A3, A4 or A5 uses (as defined by The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)
(Amendment) (England) Order 2005) shall be accompanied by schemes including full details of fume
extraction systems to the cooking and/or food preparation areas, which shall be approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The approved schemes shall be implemented prior to first use of the
commercial units to which they relate and shall thereafter be retained.
17. No development shall commence on any one phase or unit of development approved by this permission
unless and until a written scheme of archaeological investigation, to include a watching brief, trial
trenching or combination of both, along with any recommendations for future archaeological work
within the site to which the scheme relates and timescales for such work, has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any archaeological work identified in the
approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and timescales.
18. Any application for the approval of reserved matters (other than those only relating to landscaping
74
alone), shall be accompanied by a scheme outlining the scope of a Construction Environmental
Management Plan (CEMP). No development shall commence on any unit within the site covered by the
relevant reserved matters application unless and until the CEMP for that site has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All operations shall be undertaken strictly in
accordance with those details throughout the construction period of that site, unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
19. No external lighting shall be provided for any commercial, studio or leisure units within the site unless
and until a scheme or schemes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. No unit shall be occupied until the approved scheme relevant to that unit has been
implemented in full.
20. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface
water drainage from the development shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and
constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with, the site being drained. Roof water shall not
pass through the interceptor.
21. Prior to the commencement of any development on any phase or unit of development within the site, a
scheme detailing the disposal of foul and surface waters shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation
of any of the units within that phase, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
22. Any application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by full details demonstrating
that the development has sought to reduce the impact on the supply of non-renewable resources and that
full consideration has been given to the use of realistic renewable energy options and incorporated
where practicable. The details shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the
development of the site to which the application for the approval of reserved matters relates shall be
undertaken in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
23. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no development shall take place
on any phase or unit of development until details of measures to achieve BREEAM 'very good' ratings
for that phase or unit of development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
24. Within three months of first occupation of each phase or unit of development, a travel plan for that
phase or unit of development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such travel plan shall provide details of the objectives, targets and measures to promote and
facilitate public transport use, walking, cycling and practices/facilities to reduce the need to travel and
to reduce car use. It shall also provide details of its management, monitoring and review mechanisms,
travel plan coordination, and the provision of travel information and marketing. The initiatives
contained within the approved travel plan shall be implemented thereafter, together with any additional
measures that, after review, are found to be necessary to deliver the travel plan objectives.
25. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority no more than 4,500 car parking
spaces, to include a minimum of 182 spaces for disabled drivers, and a minimum of 834 cycle and 222
motorcycle parking spaces, shall be provided across the site. Such disabled, cycle and motorcycle
spaces shall be retained and kept available for use thereafter.
26. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority no more than 2,400 car parking
75
spaces shall be for non-residential uses.
27. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no more than 2,000 car parking
spaces, to include a minimum of 71 spaces for disabled drivers and a minimum of 267 cycle and 71
motorcycle parking spaces shall be provided within Phase 1 (as shown on drawing no. 6998/01_07 Rev
A). Such disabled, cycle and motorcycle spaces shall be retained and kept available for use thereafter.
28. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no more than 1,250 car parking
spaces, to include a minimum of 50 spaces for disabled drivers and a minimum of 299 cycle and 80
motorcycle parking spaces shall be provided within Phase 2. Such disabled, cycle and motorcycle
spaces shall be retained and kept available for use thereafter.
29. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no more than 1,250 car parking
spaces, to include a minimum of 61 spaces for disabled drivers and a minimum of 268 cycle and 71
motorcycle parking spaces shall be provided within Phase 3. Such disabled, cycle and motorcycle
spaces shall be retained and kept available for use thereafter.
30. None of the buildings hereby approved shall be first occupied unless and until the Broadway Link
(Broadway to Centenary Way, as identified on the Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map under
Policy A9) has been provided and made available for use.
31. Any application for the approval of reserved matters (other those only relating to landscaping alone)
shall be accompanied by a scheme demonstrating how service and delivery vehicles to each phase or
building plot enter and leave the adopted highway in a forward gear. The scheme shall be approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development to which the
application for the approval of reserved matters relates. The development shall thereafter be operated in
accordance with the approved scheme.
32. No part of the development shall be first occupied unless and until its associated car, cycle and
motorcycle parking provision has been completed and made available for use. Such disabled, cycle and
motorcycle spaces shall be retained and kept available for use thereafter.
33. Prior to the commencement of any development on any phase or unit of development, the applicant
shall submit studies that:
a) Identify, before development on the relevant phase or unit of development commences, the
potential impact area in which television reception is likely to be adversely affected by the development
hereby approved, and provide details of when in the construction process an impact on television
reception might occur;
b) Measure the existing television signal reception within the potential impact area identified in (a)
above before development on the relevant phase or unit of development commences, and provide
details of the results obtained.
c) Assess the impact of the development of the relevant phase or unit of development on television
signal reception within the potential impact area identified in (a) prior to first occupation of any of the
units within the relevant phase or unit of development. Such assessment shall identify measures to
maintain at least the pre-existing level and quality of signal reception identified by the measurements
undertaken in accordance with (b) above, and such measures shall be approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority prior to first occupation of any of the units within the relevant phase or unit of
development. The approved measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any of the units
within the relevant phase or unit of development, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
76
34. Any application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by a design statement, which
shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development of the site to which the
application for the approval of reserved matters relates shall be undertaken in accordance with the
approved statement.
35. Prior to first occupation of any one phase or unit of development approved by this permission, a
landscape maintenance and management scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The management and maintenance of the site to which the application for the
approval of reserved matters relates shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme.
36. Upon approval of the landscaping details, pursuant to Condition 1 of this permission, the new planting
shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive, (in accordance with the
appropriate British Standards for ground preparation, staking etc in BS4428:1989 (1979)) immediately
following commencement of the development of the relevant phase or unit of development. Any plants
found damaged, dead or dying in the first five years are to be duly replaced and the scheme thereafter
retained.
37. No development approved by this permission shall commence unless and until a drawing showing all
areas of publicly accessible amenity space within the site, including, but not limited to, pocket parks,
the piazza area and the Canal/Riverside walkway has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
38. Prior to first occupation of any of the buildings hereby approved, a scheme detailing the maintenance
and management of the publicly accessible amenity space shown on the drawing submitted pursuant to
Condition 37 of this permission has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The maintenance and management of these spaces shall be undertaken in accordance with
the approved scheme.
39. The publicly accessible amenity space shown on the drawing submitted pursuant to Condition 37 of this
permission shall be accessible to the public at all times, in accordance with the maintenance and
management scheme submitted pursuant to Condition 38 of this permission, unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
40. Prior to first occupation of any of the residential units within Phase 1 (as shown on drawing no.
6998/01_07 Rev A) a minimum of 0.29ha of publicly accessible amenity space shall be provided, in
accordance with the details submitted pursuant to Condition 37 of this permission.
41. Prior to first occupation of any of the residential units within Phase 2, and unless already provided
within Phase 1, a minimum of 1ha of amenity space shall be provided within Phase 2, in accordance
with the details submitted pursuant to Condition 37 of this permission.
42. Prior to first occupation of any of the residential units within Phase 3, and unless already provided
within phases 1 or 2, a minimum of 0.53ha of amenity space shall be provided within Phase 3, in
accordance with the details submitted pursuant to Condition 37 of this permission.
43. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development hereby approved
shall provide for commercial, retail or leisure uses within the ground floor levels of multi storey car
parks within the site and there shall be no car parking at those ground floor levels within such multi
storey car parks, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
77
44. The gross internal floorspace of any A1, A3, A4 or A5 unit hereby approved shall not exceed 465 sq.
metres unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
45. No development shall commence on any one phase or unit of development approved by this permission
until further survey work has been undertaken to discover the location of nesting birds within that
phase. If nesting birds are identified, a method statement detailing the measures to be taken to mitigate
against any disturbance to nesting birds and the timescales involved in such mitigation should be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved method statement
shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved timescales.
46. Development of any site to which any application for the approval of reserved matters relates shall not
commence unless and until a scheme outlining measures to achieve a target of 45% non-car modal split
(public transport, walking, cycling and taxi) for all trips to the site in the AM and PM peak hours
(defined as a 60 minute period from 0700 to 1000 and 1600 to 1900 when the combined background
and development traffic in each period is at its highest) has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented in full accordance with
the timescales for implementation within each scheme.
47. None of the buildings hereby approved shall be first occupied unless and until the operation of
junctions along Trafford Road between, and including, M602 Junction 3 and Pomona Swing Bridge has
been optimised through the implementation of a traffic control system (SCOOT or MOVA).
48. Prior to first occupation of any part of the development hereby approved a Media City Transport
Steering Group (MCTSG) shall be established which shall include, but not be limited to, the Local
Planning Authority, Local Highways Authority and the Highways Agency. The MCTSG shall review
the effectiveness of the Travel Plans (submitted pursuant to Condition 24 of this permission) and other
measures to achieve a target of a 45% non car modal split as identified in Condition 46 of this
permission.
1. Reason: Required to be imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 (1) of the Town and
Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.
2. Reason: Required to be imposed in accordance Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Reason: In order to ensure that any impacts on the environment are minimised and in order to ensure
an appropriate balance of land uses, in accordance with policies ST1, ST7, ST8, MX1 and EN17 of the
Unitary Development Plan.
5. Reason: In order to ensure that buildings are of an appropriate height in relation to their surroundings,
in accordance with Policy DES1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
6. Reason: In order to ensure an appropriate balance of land uses in accordance with the assessment
undertaken in the Environmental Statement and in accordance with policies ST1, ST7, ST8 and MX1 of
the Unitary Development Plan.
7. Reason: In order to ensure an appropriate balance of land uses in accordance with the assessment
78
undertaken in the Environmental Statement and in accordance with policies ST1, ST7, ST8 and MX1 of
the Unitary Development Plan.
8. Reason: In order protect the quality of the air and the amenity of residents, in accordance with Policy
EN17 of the Unitary Development Plan.
9. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with
Policy DES7 of the Unitary Development Plan and in order to prevent the pollution of any watercourse,
in accordance with Policy EN18 of the Unitary Development Plan
10. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
11. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
12. Reason: In order to ensure that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on microclimate, in
accordance with Policy DES5 of the Unitary Development Plan.
13. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
14. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
15. Reason: In order to encourage high standards of environmental management, in accordance with
Policy ST8 of the Unitary Development Plan.
16. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
17. Reason: In order to protect features of archaeological importance, in accordance with Policy CH5 of
the Unitary Development Plan.
18. Reason: To ensure that the environment and the safety of local residents, businesses, and the general
public in the vicinity of the construction works are satisfactorily protected in accordance with the
mitigation measures detailed in the Environmental Statement and in accordance with policies EN17
and DES7 of the Unitary Development Plan.
19. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
20. Reason: In order to prevent the pollution of any watercourse, in accordance with Policy EN18 of the
Unitary Development Plan
21. Reason: In order to ensure satisfactory drainage on the site and the protection of water resources, in
accordance with Policy EN18 of the Unitary Development Plan
22. Reason: To ensure the development accords with policy EN22 of the Unitary Development Plan.
23. Reason: In order to ensure the conservation of resources, in accordance with Policy EN22 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
24. Reason: In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with
Policy A1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
79
25. Reason: In order to ensure that the development makes sufficient provision for disabled drivers,
cyclists and motorcyclists, in order to ensure that the Council's maximum car parking standards are
not exceeded and in order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport in accordance
with policies A1 and A10 of the Unitary Development Plan.
26. Reason: In order to ensure that the Council's maximum car parking standards are not exceeded and in
order to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport in accordance with policies A1 and A10
Unitary Development Plan.
27. Reason: In order to ensure that the development makes sufficient provision for disabled drivers,
cyclists and motorcyclists and in order to ensure that the Council's maximum car parking standards are
not exceeded, in accordance with Policy A10 of the Unitary Development Plan.
28. Reason: In order to ensure that the development makes sufficient provision for disabled drivers,
cyclists and motorcyclists and in order to ensure that the Council's maximum car parking standards are
not exceeded, in accordance with Policy A10 of the Unitary Development Plan.
29. Reason: In order to ensure that the development makes sufficient provision for disabled drivers,
cyclists and motorcyclists and in order to ensure that the Council's maximum car parking standards are
not exceeded, in accordance with Policy A10 of the Unitary Development Plan.
30. Reason: In order to ensure that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impacts on the highway
network, in accordance with policies A8 and A9 of the Unitary Development Plan.
31. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
32. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
33. Reason: In order to ensure that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on
telecommunications activity, in accordance with Policy DES5 of the Unitary Development Plan.
34. Reason: To ensure that future applications accord with the provisions of policies DES11 and DES9 of
the Unitary Development Plan.
35. Reason: In order to ensure that hard and soft landscaping is satisfactorily managed and maintained, in
accordance with Policy DES9 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy UR10 of the Regional
Spatial Strategy.
36. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
37. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
38. Reason: In order to ensure that there would sufficient publicly accessible amenity space within the site,
in accordance with Policy H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.
39. Reason: In order to ensure that there would sufficient publicly accessible amenity space within the site,
in accordance with Policy H8 of the Unitary Development Plan.
40. Reason: In order to ensure that there would sufficient publicly accessible amenity space within the site,
in accordance with Policy H8 of the Unitary Development Plan
80
41. Reason: In order to ensure that there would sufficient publicly accessible amenity space within the site,
in accordance with Policy H8 of the Unitary Development Plan
42. Reason: In order to ensure that there would sufficient publicly accessible amenity space within the site,
in accordance with Policy H8 of the Unitary Development Plan
43. Reason: In order to ensure appropriate uses are provided at ground floor level and in order to
safeguard the amenity of the area, in accordance with Policy DES1 of the Unitary Development Plan.
44. Reason: In order to ensure that there would be no unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of
any town or neighbourhood centre and that the units are of an appropriate scale to their location, in
accordance with Policy S2 of the Unitary Development Plan.
45. Reason: In order to ensure than legally protected species are not unacceptably affected, in accordance
with Policy EN10 of the Unitary Development Plan.
46. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
47. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
48. Reason: In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with
Policy A1 of the 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. The applicant is advised that the Construction Environmental Management Plan should
contain information on the following topics:
81

The construction site

Protection of trees

Archaeology and cultural heritage

Noise and vibration

The control of emissions to air

Dust mitigation

Ecology

Water Management and Pollution Control (Discharge to water and site
drainage)

Neighbourhood liaison

Asbestos

Waste management

Materials storage and handling

Emergencies & accidents

Traffic management

Training

Monitoring
3. The applicant is advised that if any works are likely to disturb bat roosts, a licence will need to
be obtained from the Rural Development Service of DEFRA before work can commence. The
method statement will form part of this licence.
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from the Environment Agency
5. The applicant is advised that the responsibility to properly address contaminated land issues,
including safe development and secure occupancy, and irrespective of any involvement by
this Authority, lies with the owner/developer of the site.
6. The applicant is advised that if any of the proposed A3/A4/A5 uses operate beyond 23.00
hours, they may fall under requirements of the new licensing regime. The applicant is advised
to contact the City Council's Licensing Team (0161 793 3114) at the earliest opportunity to
clarify what licences or special conditions may apply under the Licensing Act.
7. The applicant is advised to contact the City Council's Commercial Services team (0161 737
0551) for discuss ions and advice on the layout, design and procedures undertaken by the
proposed use prior to the commencement of the business. Commercial Services can provide
such advice concerning matters relating to the Food Safety Act and the Health & Safety at
Work etc Act.
82