PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
APPLICATION No:
05/51126/FUL
APPLICANT:
Feroz Bhaloda
LOCATION:
Motor Body Repairs Unit 1 Barlow Street Worsley M28 5BQ
PROPOSAL:
Retention of single storey plant room extension, including two
chimney flues and additional door opening on north elevation
and the installation of two silencers around the existing flues
(amendment to previous planning approval 04/49410/FUL)
WARD:
Walkden North
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing my report the applicant has attempted to reduce the noise omitted from the spray
booth. The applicant has been in contact with both the Local Planning Authority and the Strategic
Director of Environmental Services over the past several months. It was established that the main
source of noise was from the two flues situated on the roof of the extensions in particular the air
intake flue. Two separate schemes have been implemented on the site by the applicant. Firstly a
hood was fitted to the intake flue, however this did not reduce the noise to an acceptable level.
Secondly ducting was attached to the intake flue, which extended the opening of flue along the
building and away from residential properties. This also failed to reduce the noise to an acceptable
level.
The applicant has submitted a noise assessment and mitigation strategy. The report identifies the
two flues situated on the top of the extension to be the main source of noise. The report identifies a
number of mitigation measures to be put in place to reduce the noise to an acceptable level. The
Strategic Director of Environmental Services has assessed the report and considers the conclusions
and proposed remedial measures to be acceptable and achievable. Many of the proposed works
would be fitted internally. Externally two silencers would be fitted to the base of the existing flues.
The silencer attached to the intake flue would measure 1m in height and sit below the existing ridge
line of the extension. The silencer attached to the outlet flue would be 2m in height and would be
0.7m above the ridge of the existing extension. The silencers would be galvanised steel sheeting, to
match the existing flues.
The silencers are located to the rear of the building and approximately 45m from Hill Top Road. I
would not consider the addition of the proposed silencers to have an unacceptable impact on the
street scene in accordance with Policy DES1.
At the previous Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel members requested additional
information in relation to the roller shutter door at the rear of the building. The roller shutter door
measures 3m X 3m and replaces a door measuring 2.1m X 1m. The roller shutter door was installed
to assist in the replacement of an old existing oil tank located beneath ground at the rear of the
building. There is no access from the rear boundary as there is palisade fencing with no access gate
along this boundary. The door will also assist in the refilling of the tank and should there ever be a
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
fire at the rear of the site it would allow for better access. The roller shutter door although larger
does replace an existing doorway. I have attached a condition to ensure the door is locked at all
times except in emergencies. The original door was not conditioned and could have been left open
at all times. I would not consider the increase in the size of the door to have an unacceptable impact
on the street scene or the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with DES1 and DES7.
In conclusion the proposed mitigation measures are achievable and acceptable and the Strategic
Director of Environmental Services consider the implementation of the proposed measures would
reduce the noise emitted from the extension to an acceptable level. I would not consider the
increase in size of the rear doorway to have an unacceptable impact on the street scene or residential
amenity. I therefore recommend the application for approval. I have attached a number of
conditions to ensure the existing ducting attached the building is removed and the remedial
measures are put in place. Due to the nature and extent of the proposed works the applicant has
estimated the works will be carried out by the end of February. I have attached a condition
requiring the works to be carried out in full within 3 months from the date of this permission. This
is to allow the proposed silencers to be made to specification and fitted.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BACKGROUND
Permission was sought for the erection of a rear extension to existing plant room including
installation of two extraction flues projecting 2m above the ridge of the roof. The application was
approved in March 2005 (04/49410/FUL) – subject to conditions.
The approved extension measured 6m x 6m with a total height of 5.4m. The extension would be
used to accommodate a vehicle spray booth in connection with the existing use of building.
Permission also included the installation of two extraction flues, which would rise 2m above the
ridge of the proposed extension to a final height of 7.41m above ground level.
The extension was not built in accordance with the approved plans. This is a retrospective
application to retain the works undertaken. The spray booth has not increased in size, as it is a
prefabricated container, however the extension within which it is contained has slightly increased
in size from the previous planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing motor body repairs workshop on Barlow Street, Walkden.
Barlow Street is home to a small enclave of commercial uses including a scrap yard and a number
of garages.
To the west and south of the application site are commercial properties located on Barlow Street.
To the east is a large field/horse paddock and to the south of the paddock are playing fields. To the
northwest, approximately 35m away are residential properties on Hill Top Road. Directly to the
north, approximately 55m from the application site are further residential properties on Hill Top
Road. All of the properties on Hill Top Road are on land, which is approximately 3-5m higher in
level, than the application site.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
The application is for the retention of a rear extension, which would be used to house a vehicle
spray booth. The proposal also includes the retention of one extraction flue and one air intake and
a 3m X 3m roller shutter door on the rear elevation.
The extension measures 5.2m X 7.5m with a height of 3m to the eaves and 5.4m to the ridge. The
roofline of the extension is in line with the existing building. One of the extraction flues situated on
top of the extension stands 2.8m above the ridge of the roof to maximum height of 8.2m. The air in
take flue stands 1m above the ridge line and has a hood attached to it. The extension is clad with
powder coated steel coloured blue.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted for the erection of rear extension to existing plant room including
installation of two extract flues projecting 2m above the ridge of the roof. The application was
approved in March 2005 (04/49410/FUL)
In May 1986, an application was refused for the use of the premises for the sale of damaged
repairable motor vehicles (E/19900).
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no objections, recommendations made for
conditions.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 5th August 2005
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
4-16 (even), 25-41 (odd) Hill Top Road
2 John Street
TAG Forklift Truck Services, unit 1 Barlow Street.
Bridgewater Laminate Products Ltd, Barlow Street
P S I Resources Ltd, Barlow Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received ten letters of objection from eight different households in response to the planning
application publicity. The following issues have been raised: Smell, fumes and pollution affecting people’s health and amenities. Reference is made to the
Precautionary Principle (as detailed in the Rio Declaration)
Increased traffic.
Increased noise.
The chemicals stored could pose a fire hazard, which would be difficult to control given the poor
access for the fire service.
The extension is an eye sore, especially given the location of horse paddocks and public playing
fields, which are in close proximity.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Wildlife will be spoilt if industrial links continue.
The only method of disposal of any hazardous and toxic waste chemicals is via the public main
which is not designed to cope with additional usage.
There is no access to the rear of the building where the extension is proposed other than via a steep
embankment.
The site is not designated in the UDP as an industrial site and there are more suitable sites
elsewhere in the city for such development.
Noise from roller shutter door
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
SD1 – The North-West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DP3 – Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
E5 – Development Within Established Employment Areas.
EN17 – Pollution Control
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of development, the design
and quality of the proposed development and the impact of the development on the amenities of
neighbouring occupiers.
Principle of development
Planning Policy Guidance Note 1 (PPG1) prioritises the use of previously developed land
(brownfield) over that which has not been developed (greenfield). Policy SD1 seeks to focus
development within the North-west Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford, and its surrounding
inner area. Policy EC4 seeks to improve employers operating conditions by encouraging the
improvement of land and premises and promoting the improvement of employment areas
generally. This is echoed in Policy E5.
The extension is contained within the applicant’s curtilage, which is brownfield land as defined by
Annex C of PPG3. The extension of the existing business would help ensure the future of this
employment use in accordance with Policy E5. Therefore, I am satisfied with the principle of the
development proposed.
Design and quality of the proposed development and the impact of the development on the
amenities of neighbouring occupiers
Policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context. Policy
DP3 also supports good design in new developments.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Policy DES8 states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations or extensions to
existing buildings that respect the scale, character, rhythm, proportions, details and materials of the
original structure. The design of alterations and extensions must result in the building appearing as
a coherent whole.
The extension would be modest in size and would be comparable in design to the existing buildings
located within the small enclave of commercial properties on Barlow Street. The exterior of the
extension is powder coated blue cladding and the shape of the extension follows the same shape as
the existing building. I am therefore satisfied with the design of the extension and consider the
proposal to be in accordance with Policy DES1 and DES8.
Policy EN17 states that development, which would contribute towards a significant increase in air
pollution, will not be permitted unless they include mitigation measures commensurate with the
scale and impact of the development proposed. Policy DES7 states that development will not be
permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of
other developments.
A thorough planning and environmental appraisal was undertaken for the original planning
application 04/49410/FUL was appraised by the Strategic Director of Environmental Services to
establish if the process required a Permit under the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations
2000 (PPC) and the Solvent Emissions Directive (SED) in conjunction with the Department of
Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Air Quality Notes (AQ) AQ14(04) and AQ31(04) and
Process Guidance Note 6/34 (04) - respraying of road vehicles.
Investigations at the initial planning consultation, established that the process did not require a
Permit as the predicted annual throughput at the time of the planning application was below the 0.5
tonne threshold as laid down in European and UK legislation for vehicle resprayers. In addition,
historically the Environment Directorate has never received odour complaints from residents in
close proximity to vehicle resprayers – even the small-scale vehicle resprayers which are not
controlled via conditions in an authorisation/permit.
The process continues not to require a Permit under the Pollution Prevention and Control
Regulations 2000. As per AQ21 (05), proposed installations under 1 tonne per annum can begin
operating without approval under PPC or the SED; but it will be unlawful for anyone to sell them
non compliant paint for vehicle refinishing on or after 1 January 2007. The statutory nuisance
controls are under Part III of the Environment Protection Act
In order to address concerns raised by objectors to 04/94910/FULL, the planning permission
granted on 17th March 2005, appended the following conditions to deal with:
Stack height and its ability to disperse emission
Noise levels,
And monitoring records of solvent use.
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services confirms that noise is the only complaint that
has been received about this process since the commencement of operations. Noise measurements
have been undertaken and confirm that noise from the process exceeds the background level by 6
dB. The applicant’s are currently working with the spraybooth manufacturer in order to comply
and must do so within 28 days from the date of permission.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
No further complaints have been received regarding odour or dust emanating from the process.
This suggests that the stack and spray booth filters are working well within their design parameters
and abating any problems before they have a chance to occur.
I have no objections on traffic grounds. It is unlikely that the proposal would result in a significant
increase in traffic to the area.
The Health and Safety Regulations administered by Environment Director and Health and Safety
Executive control the use of chemicals on site. The Building Regulations will address the design
and construction of the site in terms of fire safety.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The plans have been amended and one the flue stacks have been considerably reduced in height, as
it is an air intake and therefore does not require to be the same height as the out take flue. Amended
plans have been received, as the original plans were not an accurate representation of the structure
built on site.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of development, the design
and quality of the proposed development and the impact of the development on the amenities of
neighbouring occupiers. I am satisfied with the principle of development and the design proposed.
Planning permission has already been granted for a similar proposal and I do not consider the
current proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents/occupiers. The proposal is in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan
and all other material considerations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Within 3 months from the date of this decision and 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) as measured at the boundary of the nearest residential
premises. 'T' is specified as any 1 hour time period between the hours 07.00 to 23.00hrs and is
specified as any 5 minutes time period outside of the specified times.
2. After a period of 3 months from the date of this permission and at intervals after this, the
frequency of which shall be agreed in writing following the initial 3 month period, all records
of solvent use connected with the development hereby approved shall be submitted to the Local
Planning Authority.
3. The roller shutter door on the rear elevation shall be kept closed at all times except for use by
personnel for access/egress to the rear of the property and emergency use only.
4. Within 3 months from the date of this permisison the existing ducting attached to the inlet flue
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
shall be removed and the noise mitigation measures as detailed in the submitted report by
Accoustic Measures dated 25th October 2006 and the submitted plan Drawing No. SC/04/01
Revision F shall be implemented in full.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
APPLICATION No:
06/52903/FUL
APPLICANT:
Countryside Properties (Northern) Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Ordsall Lane, Derwent Street, South Hall
Street And River Irwell Salford M5 4SZ
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing industrial units and erection of part
5/6/7/8/10/20 storey mixed use development comprising 437 one
and two bed residential apartments and 12,000sq ft commercial
office (Class B1) with undercroft and ground floor level car
parking together with associated landscaping and construction
of new and alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian
accesses
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing employment area. The site is bounded by Ordsall Lane to the
west, Derwent Street to the north, the River Irwell to the east and Gresham Mill and South Hall
Street to the south. The surrounding uses comprise of drive-through hot food uses, a casino,
residential provision and offices.
The proposal seeks to provide a mixed use residential lead scheme within a number of blocks
ranging in height from 20 to 5 storey. 437 apartments and 12,000sq ft of B1 office provision would
be provided within the proposed blocks together with 393 car parking spaces. The proposed
massing of the scheme would introduce two distinct tall elements along the River Irwell. They
would be 10 and 20 storey in height. The 10 storey element would be located adjacent to the
existing Gresham Mill site. The proposal would then step up to 20 storey in height and would be
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
linked via a glass atrium (Block C). Turning the corner on Derwent Street the proposal would step
down to seven storey (Block D).
The Ordsall Lane elevations would be a mix of eight and five storey. The taller eight storey
element would be located on the corner of Ordsall Lane and Derwent Street and is designed to
provide a corner feature along Ordsall Lane. Where the blocks return along Derwent Street and
South Hall Street they would be six storey in height.
The commercial element of the mixed use scheme would be provided within blocks A and B and
would be located along part of the Derwent Street, South Hall Road and Ordsall Lane frontage. 437
residential units of accommodation would be provided within along with 12,000sq ft of
replacement commercial floorspace. The residential accommodation would comprise of 150 one
bedroom apartments 37sq m (35% in total), 271 two bedroom apartments, 98 at 53sq m and 178 at
57 sq m (61% of the total) and 16 three bedroom apartments 73sq m (4% of the total)
The 12,000sq ft of commercial B1 space would be provided at ground floor and would be situated
in blocks A and B which would front Ordsall Lane, Derwent Street and South Hall Street at the
western end of the site.
The east of the site is bounded by the River Irwell and riverside walkway. The site is approximately
1.5m higher than the level of the riverside walkway.
The proposed configuration of the blocks of accommodation would provide for both car parking
and amenity space to be provided within an inner court. A total of 393 car parking spaces would be
provided. Access to the car parking area would be from Derwent Street and South Hall Street. The
residential car parking would be from Derwent Street with the servicing from South Hall Street.
HISTORY
Whilst there is no relevant planning history for this specific site, the neighbouring site does benefit
from an extant permission. The relevant applications are as follows:
04/49322/FUL - Erection of one part eight-storey/part nine-storey block comprising 63 apartments
together with associated car parking and landscaping - Approved in July 2005
06/53220/OUT - Demolition of industrial unit and outline planning application to include siting
and means of access for the erection of 140 residential units – Withdrawn for consideration
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to conditions relating to noise
and site investigations
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – No objection subject to conditions requiring additional site
investigations
Environment Agency – No objection subject to a condition requiring the finish floor level to be
agreed.
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No Objection
United Utilities – No objection in principle subject to appropriate drainage.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – No objection but would expect a travel plan
to be produced.
Salford Central Urban Regeneration Company – Since amendments have been made to the design,
mix of apartments and the increase of replacement commercial floorspace, the URC have
withdrawn their objection to the scheme.
Manchester City Council – Whilst the principle of the proposed mix of development would not
conflict with emerging strategies for the Irwell Corridor, the development should be of a
significantly higher quality of design than is demonstrated by the submitted scheme.
Manchester Airport – No objection
Ramblers Association – No objection
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No Response
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No response
The Open Spaces Society – No Response
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on the 23rd June 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on the 22nd June 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
McDonalds, Regent Road
KFC Drive Thru, Regent Road
Grosvenor Casino, Regent Road
Amberworks Ltd, The Mill, South Hall Street
Apartment 001 – 007 (con) 101 – 109 (con), 201 – 209 (con), 301- 309 (con), 401 – 409 (con), 501
– 509 (con), 606 – 609 (con), 706 – 709 (con), 806 – 809 (con), 906 – 907 (con), 1001 and 1002 The
Mill South Hall Street.
Flat 26 – 57 (con) Cassandra Court, Asgard Drive
Flat 98 – 113 (con) Imogen Court, Asgard Drive
Flat 9 – 25 (con) Miranda Court, Asgard Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity from 35
households. Some residents have written more than one letter in response to changes to the
scheme. A letter has been received from the Regent Park Residents Association. I have also
received a letter from the Ordsall Community Forum which sets out a number of concerns
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
regarding the development. Whilst a number of the letters support the principle of development for
the area the following issues have been raised:Increase in traffic
Poor public transport
Insufficient car parking
Insufficient services
Shadowing
Loss of day light
Impact of the development at back of kerb
Too many tall buildings along the riverside
Tall buildings out of keeping with the area
More open spaces are required along the riverside
Who would be living in the properties?
Loss of light
Loss of view
Loss of privacy
Make the area ugly
Lack of perspective and respect for the social environment
Need for double yellow lines on South Hall Street
Amendments have not addressed the issues raised as the scheme has increased
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area
DP1 - Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
MX4 Sites for Mixed Use Development
DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, H1
Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision
Within New Housing Developments, ST3 Employment Land, ST11
Location of New Development, A1 Transport Assessments and
Travel Plans, A8 Impact of Development on the Highway Network,
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Development, E5 Development Within Established Employment
Areas, EN9 Wildlife Corridors, EN14 Pollution Control, EN22
Resource Conservation, DES5 Tall Building, DES7 Amenity of Users
and Neighbours
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1
W4
L4
MCR2
–
–
-
Regional Development Principles
Release of Allocated Employment Land
Regional Housing Provision
Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City Region
PLANNING APPRAISAL
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the density, design, layout and mix of the proposal is
acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity; whether the
proposal would have any impact upon highway safety; whether the proposal would result in an
unacceptable loss of employment provision; and whether the proposed level of parking is
acceptable. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
The Principle of Residential Development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. With regards to the principle of the
proposed development, the site is located within an area of mixed uses.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to develop
previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be considered
in accessible locations.
The release of draft RSS in January 2006, proposes to significantly increase the housing
requirement in Salford with over a threefold increase in the annual requirement from 530 to 1600
units per annum. Whilst the provision of housing is relevant in the consideration of this scheme, it
should be noted that little weight can be afforded to draft RSS at this time.
Policy ST11 states that sites for development will be brought forward in a sequential order. The
sequential order is defined below:
1
2
3
4
The re use and conversion of existing buildings
Previously-developed land in locations that:
(i) are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice
of means of transport; and
(ii) are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure
Previously-developed land in other locations, provided that adequate levels of
accessibility and infrastructure provision could be provided
Green field locations
(i) are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice
of means of transport; and
(ii) are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure
It is clear that the site has been previously developed and therefore is considered as a brownfield
site. The site is also in close proximity to the City Centre and within walking distance of the
Metrolink.
As such I consider that this site to be defined as criteria 2(i) in the sequential order and therefore
accords with Policy ST11 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Loss of Employment Land
Strategic Policy ST3 seeks to ensure the supply of a good range of local employment opportunities.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
The Council’s commissioned Employment Land Study indicates that the city has a relatively
constrained supply of employment land/premises. The Council therefore holds a presumption
against the loss of further employment land and premises.
Policy E5 of the UDP sets out criteria for when planning permission will be granted for the reuse or
redevelopment of sites or buildings within an established employment area for non-employment
uses. For the purposes of applying this policy the site is considered to be an established
employment area as it falls within the definition in Policy E5. The policy states that planning
permission will only be granted where the development would not compromise the operating
conditions of other related employment uses, and where one or more of the following apply:
The developer can demonstrate there is no current or likely future demand for the site
for employment purposes; or
There is a strong case for rationalising land uses or creating open space; or
The development would contribute to the implementation of an approved regeneration
strategy or plan for the area; or
The site is allocated for another use in the UDP.
I do not consider the proposal would compromise the operating conditions of other related
employment uses within the area. Given that the neighbouring use is a residential mixed use
scheme (Gresham Mill) and the site to the north has the benefit of an extant permission for
residential development. Therefore in order for the loss of the employment to be acceptable in
policy terms, the applicant has submitted an Employment Study which seeks to justify the loss of
employment land on the basis that there is no current demand for the site.
The applicant has provided an Employment Land Study in accordance with policy E5. In order to
demonstrate that there is no current demand for the site for employment use. The study includes an
assessment of demand in the local area and the type of provision currently provided. It also
includes existing vacancy rates and likely future demand for office provision in the future. In the
Derwent Street Estate over 50% of the units have been vacant for more than 12-18 months, whilst
on the Slough Industrial Estate there is also a current vacancy of 50% over a similar period.
The Employment Study also details the marketing that has taken place to seek to provide tenants for
the existing vacant units. These have included brochures, boards and entries on listings of available
premises. Moreover, the scheme has been amended so that the amount of replacement commercial
floorspace has been increased from 5,000sq ft to 12,000sq ft of B1 office provision.
The report demonstrates that there is no current demand for existing employment uses on the site.
Moreover, whilst the developer has raised concerns over the future demand for employment
provision in this part of the city, the amount of replacement commercial floorspace has been
increased from 5,000sq ft to 12,000sq ft to address potential future demand and to retain
employment provision within the City.
Given the increase in the amount of replacement commercial floorspace proposed and the location
along the Ordsall Lane corridor and having regard to the proximity of the site within the regional
centre and the existing public transport infrastructure, I am satisfied that the proposal with 12,000sq
ft of commercial floorspace is appropriate for this location and satisfies the policies highlighted
above.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Density
Policy ST12 states that development within the regional centre, town centres, and close to key
public transport routes and interchanges will be required to achieve a high density appropriate to
the location and context.
Given that this site is located within the regional centre and having regard to the existing public
transport infrastructure, I am satisfied that 560 dwellings per hectare it is appropriate for this
location.
Housing Mix
The principle of residential development as part of a true mixed use scheme is supported as the site
is previously developed land, well located close to the regional centre and offers the opportunity to
regenerate a key riverside corridor as detailed above. Moreover, additional residential development
is one of those uses considered acceptable in the mixed use areas (Policy MX1, criteria a).
The reasoned justification to Policy MX1 states that around 500 dwellings will come forward in the
Ordsall Lane Corridor during the plan period. This figure is indicative, and the development of this
site at this time would not be constrained simply by the number of dwellings coming forward.
However, if over the Plan period there is a significant increase in overall yield (i.e. above the
indicative 500 dwellings) in the Ordsall Lane Riverside Corridor as a result of future applications, it
will be important that this is ‘gradual and managed’ and not at the ‘expense of the provision of local
employment opportunities’ (reasoned justification MX1).
Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced
mix of dwellings within the local area. Criterion 1, of this policy states that all new housing
development will be required to contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings
within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability.
Policy H2 of the adopted UDP is also relevant to the consideration of the scale of the proposal.
Whilst seeking to ensure that an adequate supply of new housing is provided across the city in
accordance with that set out in RSS, this policy seeks to restrict housing development in areas
where there is evidence of an “unacceptable actual or potential oversupply of housing”. At the
current time there is no clear evidence of an oversupply of housing in this area. It is also important
to take into consideration evidence from all levels (national, regional and local), which suggests
that household growth is likely to continue and that in acknowledgement of this, the draft RSS is
proposing to significantly increase annual housing provision for Salford. However, at present I
consider that some weight, albeit little, should be afforded to the draft RSS.
The residential accommodation proposed in this scheme would comprise of 150 one bedroom
apartments (35% in total), 271 two bedroom apartments (61% of the total) and 16 three bedroom
apartments (4% of the total). No studio apartments are proposed.
Planning Guidance for Housing has replaced the draft Housing Supplementary Planning Document
(SPD). The thrust of this guidance is to ensure a balanced mix in accordance with policy H1 of the
UDP. Whilst the guidance is less prescriptive than the draft SPD in terms of specifying a specific
amount of any one type of accommodation, it does seek to provide an appropriate mix. The
guidance has been adopted by the City Council and therefore a material consideration.
The floor area for the apartments would be as follows:
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
One bedroom apartments 37sq m
Type B two bedroom apartments (93) 53sq m
Type C two bedroom apartments (178) 57sq m
Three bedroom apartments 73sq m
Criterion C of policy H1 goes on to state that in determining the appropriate mix, one of the factors
that should be taken into consideration is the mix of dwellings in the surrounding area.
The scheme, as amended, now provides 45% of accommodation at 57sq m or greater. The 16 three
bedroom apartments have been introduced at ground level. I consider that the mix identified above
and having regard to the wider area is sufficient to satisfy the Planning Guidance for Housing and
policy H1 of the adopted UDP.
Design, Scale and Massing
Adopted 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 DES5 states that tall buildings will be permitted where they meet a number of criteria.
Those criteria include that the scale of the development is appropriate to its context and location;
that the location is highly accessible to public transport, walking and cycling; that the building
would relate positively to and interact well with the adjacent public realm; that the building would
be of the highest quality design; that the building would make a positive addition to the skyline and
would not detract from important views and that there would be no unacceptable impact on the
setting of a listed building or on the character or appearance of a conservation area. The reasoned
justification for the policy goes on to say that tall buildings are more likely to be appropriate within
the mixed use areas identified policy MX1.
Given that the proposal includes apartments which would step up to 20 storey in height, I consider
that it is appropriate to consider the scheme against this policy.
Adopted Policy DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the
proposal takes account of the need for good design. In accordance with the requirements of this
policy a written statement has been submitted which explains the design concepts and how these
are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual appearance, the relationship to the site
and its wider context and how the proposal meets the Council’s design objectives and policies.
The architects for the scheme have sought to achieve a high quality of design and have made
amendments to the original design as a result of concerns expressed by the URC, City Council and
Urban Vision. The applicant’s architects have worked with the City Council’s architectural
consultant, to improve the scale and massing of the proposal and architectural detailing. I am now
of the opinion that, with the amendments made, the proposals are acceptable.
The main structure of the building is made up of a pre-cast concrete panel system. The external
walls will consist of either pre-cast concrete finishes, traditional acrylic render or high specification
dark grey cladding panels. It will also include elements of traditional masonry treatments to sub
floor retaining walls.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Black feature fin walls and surround provide a vertical link projecting from the facade which
incorporates private amenity space in the form of a balcony. This feature has been extended to the
20 storey block and continues to the buildings full height. This aids the vertical perception of the
building and reinforces this building as a landmark feature along Ordsall Lane and the River
corridor. These features have been revised to continue to ground floor level. This strengthens the
feature in creating separation from the facade behind and reinforces the vertical emphasis of the
facade.
The ground floor facade to blocks A / B have been revised to incorporate the additional commercial
floorspace. There is now a continuous active frontage to this block at ground floor level adjoining
Derwent Street, South Hall Street and Ordsall Lane. This adds to the separation of form to lower
and upper horizontal elements of the facade to this block.
Relative to the increase in commercial area at ground floor level on Derwent Street, Ordsall Lane
and South Hall Street (Block A-B), the landscape frontage has been amended. A residential type
layout of garden terraces to apartments is no longer appropriate and thus the area in front of the
active frontage is ‘open’ and provides an improvement to the public realm.
The architectural design of block C-D (adjacent to the River Irwell) has also been revised. The
riverside building is divided and massed into 2 blocks. This is linked by a glass atrium thus creating
an additional aspect through, to and from the river frontage.
Gresham Mill adjacent to the site is 6 storey in height. The element of the proposal adjacent to
Gresham Mill would be 10 storey in height. The proposal would then step up in height to the north
to 20 storey in height. The neighbouring site, whilst currently occupied by single storey industrial
uses, has the benefit of an extant permission for a 10 storey residential tower. An outline
application for a 23 storey tower was submitted earlier this year but has since been withdrawn. It is
likely a revised application for a taller tower will be re-submitted in the very near future. Opposite
the site on the Manchester City Council side of the River Irwell is a residential scheme (Vie) which
is now nearing completion and is 10-12 storey in height.
I consider that the design, scale and massing of the revised scheme offers a high standard of design.
The position of the tower element of the scheme along the River corridor and the elevation to
Ordsall Lane result in landmark features which also represent a gateway to the Ordsall area. I also
consider this scheme represents a high quality transition to the high density, tall buildings on the
opposite side of the River Irwell within Manchester City Council. As such, I consider that the
scheme would therefore comply with the policies highlighted above.
The relationship of the scheme to the surrounding residential properties is discussed in more detail
in the next section of this report.
Effects of the development on neighbours
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers
or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
I have received a number of objections from neighbouring residents regarding the impact of the
proposed development on their amenity, and in particular loss of light and privacy. Whilst the
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
objections received are generally from the locality the majority of the objection have been from
Cassandra Court. Given the city centre location of the site and the nature of the development, it is
not appropriate to apply the interface standards that are used to guide development elsewhere
within the city. Such concerns must also be considered against the benefits of the scheme, namely
the redevelopment of an underused and largely unattractive site, the provision of a mixture of uses,
including active uses along the Ordsall Lane frontage, and the construction of buildings which
would enhance the area and which accord fully with other Council policies. The relationship of the
scheme to existing properties in the vicinity is discussed in more detail below.
Separation and privacy distances
The elevation facing Ordsall Lane would include ground floor commercial floor space (Block AB)
and floors above would comprise of residential accommodation. The central element of this
elevation would be a total of five storey in height (including the commercial element) and would be
16m in height. The elevation would step up in height towards South Hall Street to six storey in
height (including the commercial element) and would be 18.6m in height. On the corner of Ordsall
Lane and Derwent Street the elevation would step up to eight storey in height (including the
commercial element) and would be 24.8m in height.
Cassandra Court is located opposite block AB. Cassandra Court is set at an angle to Ordsall Lane.
Block AB is sited parallel to Ordsall Lane. Cassandra Court is elevated above the road level of
Ordsall Lane and provides four floors of accommodation. It is constructed of brick and includes a
traditional pitched roof. The closest corner of Cassandra Court to elevation AB (which would be
18.6m in height) would be 22.8m. The angle of Cassandra Court would result in an increase in
separation to 50m. Given the height and relationship of Cassandra Court to Ordsall Lane and
elevation AB, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy.
The Vie building on the opposite side of the River Irwell would be 47m from the 10 and 20 storey
tower elements facing the river. In terms of privacy I consider that this separation distance across
the River Irwell to the 10-12 storey residential properties in Manchester to be acceptable.
There are no windows proposed within the gable of the 10 storey element of block CD (facing the
river) closest to Gresham Mill. There are no windows within the gable of Gresham Mill. The 20
storey tower element of block CD does include secondary windows within the element facing
Gresham Mill, however, they are secondary and would be 40m from Gresham Mill.
The elevation of block CD facing Derwent Street would include habitable windows. However,
these windows are secondary and would be obscurely glazed. The extant permission at the adjacent
site on Derwent Street does have two bedrooms on each of the 10 floors with sole aspect bedroom
windows facing the proposed tower element. One window would 8m from the proposal and the
second would 9m from the proposal. This relationship would be repeated on each of the 10 floors.
Whilst this aspect is less than the distance normally applied within the City for aspect of future
occupiers, the scheme has been amended to ensure that there are no main aspect windows within
the northern elevation of the 20 storey tower and the secondary windows are obscurely glazed. As
such I am satisfied that the scheme would not result in a loss of privacy. The sunlight study
demonstrated that the shadow resulting from the 20 storey tower would only cast a shadow on the
site of the extant permission. Given that they are bedroom windows I do not consider this to be
detrimental to any future occupiers. Given the city centre location of the site and the nature of the
development, it is not appropriate to apply the interface standards that are used to guide
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
development elsewhere within the city. A shadow would also be cast on the Cassandra Court in the
morning during the winter months. During the summer months part of Cassandra Court would
have a shadow cast until 9.00am. However, I consider that the landmark feature of this 20 storey
element coupled with the improvements to the design and the introduction of a new access to the
Riverside outweighs the Council’s normal separation distance in this instance.
In addition, I have been informed by the developer of the neighbouring site that the extant
permission which includes bedroom windows in the gable facing this proposal is unlikely to be
developed as approved due to economic reasons. Moreover, a recent outline application for a 20
storey tower on the neighbouring site has recently been withdrawn to enable additional design work
to be undertaken. That scheme did not include aspect windows within the side gable facing this
current scheme.
The internal relationships of the residential blocks would provide and appropriate level of
separation and privacy in accordance the Councils normal separation distances.
As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of the
privacy and separation.
Sunlight / Shadowing
The applicant has submitted a sun path study within the design statement. The sun path study
demonstrates that the scheme would not have an unacceptable impact upon existing residents of
Cassandra Court or Gresham Mill by way of loss of sun light and shadowing. Moreover, the
applicant has also commissioned a further assessment of shadowing in the area. This assessment
also confirms that the scheme would not result in an unacceptable impact on existing and future
residents.
As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of the
sunlight and shadowing.
Design and Crime
Policy DES10 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Design and Crime
seeks to ensure that development is designed to discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear
of crime, and support personal and property security. Crime and Disorder is a material planning
consideration.
The Police Architectural Liaison advisor has considered the proposals. The response states “This
was the subject of a pre planning consultation with this unit and my only comment is that it is
essential that the landscaping proposals are implemented so that the defensible space to the ground
floor flats is created. Otherwise I can see no problem with the proposals.”
As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of
designing out crime.
Car Parking and Access
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s minimum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
The applicant’s agent has provided a Transport Assessment (TA) in accordance with policy A1 of
the adopted UDP.
I have considered the information provided within the TA and I am satisfied that the level of
development proposed would not have an unacceptable impact upon the highway network. I am
satisfied that sufficient visibility would be provided at the entrance to the site to safeguard highway
safety.
The proposal would provide 393 off street car parking spaces within a two storey deck. The car
parking ratio is at 85% for the residential element of the scheme. Disabled, motorcycle and cycle
parking provided at acceptable ratios. 18 spaces are designated for the commercial area. The car
park area would be screened from Ordsall Lane, Derwent Street and the River Irwell Corridor by
the proposed building. The car park would also be screened from the South Hall Street elevation,
partially by the proposed building and partially behind an existing boundary wall.
Access to the car parking area would be from Derwent Street and South Hall Street. The residential
car parking would be from Derwent Street with the servicing from South Hall Street.
The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive has no objection to the proposal in
principle.
Given the site’s location in relation to existing community, public transport and other local
facilities, I consider that the 90% car parking provision across the site to be appropriate for this part
of the City.
Given the likely time period to construct the proposal I have attached a condition requiring the
submission of a site operating statement. This will require information to be provided and agreed
on:
provision of permitted hours for construction works
delivery of materials and delivery and collection of equipment
provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's vehicles
wheelwashing facilities
street sweeping
I have also attached a condition requiring the provision of cycle stores for the apartments.
Subject to the above conditions I have no highway objections and I am satisfied that the proposal
accords with the requirements of the policies highlighted.
Open Space Provision
Adopted Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
Adopted policy R2 states that planning permission will be granted for recreational development
provided it would satisfy a number of criteria.
This application would generate a total of 1,177 bedspaces (150no. 1bed, 271no. 2bed and 16no.
3bed dwellings). This would result in an open space contribution requirement equal to:
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
0.8344ha Sports Pitches
0.2858ha Children's Equipped Playspace
0.4572ha Informal/Amenity Open Space.
The site is located in a deficiency area for all the Greenspace provision. The only proposed sites in
the Greenspace Strategy SPD which would alleviate some of this deficiency are improvements to
the River Irwell walkway which could satisfy the Local Semi-Natural Greenspace standard, and
upgrading Ordsall Park could provide the site with District Park provision.
The scheme is not proposing any on-site open space (with the exception of a small area of amenity
space at the end of Derwent Street). The Planning Statement confirms an agreement to provide a
financial contribution in lieu of on-site open space provision. For formal and informal/ capital and
maintenance open space provision, for this development, the total financial contribution would be:
£635,580 (1,177 X £540). I would anticipate that some of these monies would be spent on the
provision of a new pedestrian access to the River Irwell and riverside walkway.
As such, I am satisfied that this contribution complies with Adopted Policy H8 and R2 of the
adopted plan subject to the provision of an appropriate S106 agreement to secure this level of
contribution.
Air Quality
The applicant has undertaken an air quality assessment in accordance with policy EN14 of the
adopted plan.
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has assessed this report and is satisfied that the
impacts of the development on air quality are negligible and does not recommend any further
restrictions on air quality grounds.
Therefore, in conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the requirements of the
policies highlighted above with regard to air quality.
Sustainable Construction
Policy EN22 of the UDP explains planning permission will not be granted if the development will
have an unacceptable impact on the conservation of non-renewable resources.
The applicant has stated the following with regard to sustainable construction:the development is on a brownfield site
The applicant has stated that the scheme will seek to achieve a BREEAM eco homes rating
adherence to the new Part L of the building regulations controlling thermal losses from the
buildings will assist with the general energy performance of the building
buildings will be designed with a highly efficient construction system
all units are fully accessible to all
durable prefabricated materials are proposed with exposed thermal mass will assist energy
performance
waste management strategy
the level of parking is 90% for the residential units
inclusion of local labour force to ensure socially sustainable construction
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Other Issues
The applicant has commission a report on the potential impact of the development of TV reception.
The assessment concludes that the scheme is unlikely to have an impact on the neighbouring
properties. However, at the time the survey was undertaken there was a significant amount of
development taking place in the area. As such, I have attached a condition requiring a further
assessment to be undertaken and that any recommendations are to be implemented by the developer
as necessary to safeguard local TV coverage.
The applicant has provided a waste management plan which includes details of recycling. The
refuse areas would be provided within the envelope of the building.
Emerging Ordsall Master Plan
The URC, working closely with the City Council, intend to commission consultants to prepare an
informal masterplan for Ordsall Riverside, in consultation with key stakeholders in the area (major
landholders, community forum etc). It is expected that this masterplan – once agreed, would be
converted into informal Planning Guidance by the City Council (similar to the pattern followed for
Greengate and Media City).
This site is within the area identified for this masterplan. However, consultants have yet to be
appointed and as such, there is currently no master plan existing for the area. In this case the
neighbouring sites have either been developed or have extant permission for residential
development. As such I do not consider that this scheme would unacceptably hamper or reduce the
development options for the wider area.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The scheme has been amended since the submission of the application to include three bedroom
accommodation, improvements to the design and external appearance and an increase in the
amount of commercial floorspace.
The amendments made to the scheme have resulted in the following mix of apartments:
150 one bedroom apartments (35% in total);
271 two bedroom apartments (61% of the total); and
16 three bedroom apartments (4% of the total).
The original submission included the following mix:
168 one bed apartments
185 two bed apartments; and
84 larger 2 bed apartments.
Moreover, 45% of the units now have a floor area circa 57m2 or greater.
In accordance with Policy H8 of the Adopted UDP, the applicant has agreed to enter into an
agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of a
total of £635,580. This would contribute to the provision of open space in the vicinity. However, it
is likely that a proportion of these monies would be directed towards the public realm works at the
end of Derwent Street and the Riverside Walkway.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
The design, scale and massing of the proposal has been improved through negotiation with the City
Council’s Consultant Architect.
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied that the amended design is of a high quality and that the application would not have
any significant detrimental effect upon the amenity of neighbouring residents or on the surrounding
area in general. I am satisfied that the proposed development would act as a catalyst for future
successful development and that it would signify the City Council’s intent to accept only a high
quality of development. I am also satisfied that the level of on site parking is acceptable. I am
satisfied that the application complies with policies of the development plan as a whole.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. The scheme shall
include full details trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment
and shall incorporate the principles set out in the landscaping masterplan which accompanied
the application. The scheme shall also include phasing details for the implementation of the
landscaping. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and
phased provision. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to
the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
3. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until details of the existing
and proposed floor levels have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details.
4. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of
the external elevations of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include the construction of a
1m by 1m structure using samples of the materials and any mortar to be provided on site. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples.
5. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the approval of the LPA. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and
distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an
identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled
waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping
schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA prior to the start of the site
investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the approved
report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the LPA.
6. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
7. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation to
provision of permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials and delivery and
collection of equipment, provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's
vehicles, wheelwashing facilities, street sweeping and no development or activities related or
incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement.
8. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme for the development hereby
approved has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such
scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of any the
development.
9. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a report, which shall be
undertaken by a body approved by the Independent Television Commission, detailing the
existing level and quality of TV reception. Prior to first occupation of the development the
developer shall submit, for the approval of the Local Planning Authority, a scheme that will
detail measures to remedy any identified television signal reception problems which have been
caused as a result of the development hereby approved. The scheme, which shall be verified by
a body approved by the Independent Television Commission, shall identify such measures
necessary to maintain at least the pre-existing level and quality of signal reception. The
approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any residential property.
10. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of
balconies of the development hereby approved 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.
11. No development shall be started until full details of the location, design and construction of
cycle stores have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Such approved cycle stores shall thereafter be constructed and made available for use before
the development is brought into use.
12. All elevations facing Ordsall Lane, Derwent Street and South Hall Street shall be constructed
so as to provide sound attenuation against external noise so as to achieve the following internal
noise levels;
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
1. 35dBLAeq in bedrooms between the hours of 23.00 and 07.00 with no single instantaneous
event giving rise to a level exceeding 45dBLAmax (fast)
2. 40 dBLAeq in all other habitable rooms at all times
Prior to discharge of the condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local
Planning Authority for approval. The site completion report shall validate that the building
envelope works were completed in accordance with the above standards.
13. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 23rd October 2006 and 28th
November 2006 which show alterations to each elevation, an increase in the amount of
commercial floorspace, design alterations and an increase in height of blocks AB
14. The development shall not be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing all the following
matters including; sustainable construction techniques; natural ventilation techniques;
sustainable urban drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar heat gain and use of renewable
energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability matters have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first occupation of any
dwelling the approved scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be retained and maintained
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
15. Prior to first occupation a scheme detailing the allocation of car parking spaces for both the
commercial and residential users shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for written
approval. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation and shall be
made available at all times in accordance with the approved details.
16. Notwithstanding the waste management information submitted with the application, no
development shall commence until a scheme of recycling facilities for the apartments has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme as is
approved shall be implemented in full along with the waste management requirements set out
in the submitted design statements prior to the first occupation of any dwelling or unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
17. The windows contained within the northern elevation of the 20 storey tower shall be obscurely
glazed and shall be retained as such thereafter.
18. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme which investigates the potential of
renewable energy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any of
the dwellings and shall remain effective thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding in accordance with
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
policy EN19 of the Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
6. Standard Reason R013B Use of parking areas
7. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
8. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
9. To provide a remedy to the identified loss of TV reception as a result of the development hereby
approved and to ensure that the development at least maintains the existing level and quality of
television signal reception as advised in PPG 8: Telecommunications and policy DES7 of the
Adopted UDP
10. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
11. To encourage alternative sustainable modes of transport in accordance with policy A10 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
12. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
13. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
14. In order to address recycling and sustainability issues in accordance with policy EN22 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
15. Standard Reason R013B Use of parking areas
16. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
17. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
18. To maximise resource conservation in accordance with Policy EN22 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
2. The applicants attention is drawn to the advice provided by United Utilities and the
Environment Agency regarding drainage issues, connection and approval.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
3. The applicants attention is drawn to the advice provided by GMGU regarding the requirements
of further site investigations
4. The Environmental Services Directorate can be contacted on 0161 737 0551 for further
discussions concerning the assessment of noise and subsequent mitigation measures at this site.
For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Directorate of
Environmental Services (Tel: (0161) 793 2046).
5. Notwithstanding the requirements of condition 13 the following information is provided for the
applicants attention:
Where necessary to meet these noise levels, habitable rooms (bedrooms, lounges/living rooms
and kitchen dining areas) shall be provided with alternative means of ventilation in order to
allow adequate ventilation without having to open windows. Acoustic trickle ventilators and
other passive ventilation systems shall not be the only means of ventilating habitable room on
the aforementioned elevations.
APPLICATION No:
06/53196/FUL
APPLICANT:
Peel Holdings Limited
LOCATION:
Land At Boysnope Wharf Off Liverpool Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Land raising and erection of an industrial/warehousing unit
(B2/B8) and five office units (Class B1) together with associated
landscaping, car parking and construction of new vehicular
access
WARD:
Irlam
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site relates to land to the north east of Irlam between the A57 trunk road and the
Manchester Ship Canal. It is bordered to the east by a golf driving range; to the south by an
industrial estate; to the north by farm buildings that have been converted into commercial premises
housing a golf business and residential properties and to the west by Green Belt with the area
immediately adjacent to the A57 being occupied by a golf course. The site covers an area of 1.9
hectares. The application site is currently uneven land comprising overgrown vegetation.
The application proposes the erection of one industrial warehouse unit (B2/B8) and five office units
(B1) with associated car parking. The proposed access to the site would be provided from the
existing access point which currently serves the golf driving range. A proposed entrance to the site
would be created from the existing access road approximately 90m from the junction with the A57.
The warehouse unit would provide 4180m2 of industrial warehousing use and 468m2 of ancillary
office space. The proposed five office units would provide 4043m2 of office space. The application
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
also proposes land raising the existing site to give a level area to develop. The current levels of the
site indicate a depression feature with a variation of up to 4.8m in height from the perimeter of the
site to the lowest point of the site. It is proposed to cut and fill the site to the same level as the
adjacent access road. The proposed hours of use are Monday to Sunday 06.00 hours to 20.00 hours.
The application has been accompanied by a Transport Statement, Design Statement, Geo-technical
report and a Planning Statement.
SITE HISTORY
Outline planning permission was granted in April 2005 for the erection of industrial/warehouse
units (B1, B2 and B8) together with associated parking and alterations to vehicular access. The
application included means of access from the current golf driving range. (02/43848/OUT)
CONSULTATION
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections to the proposal but recommends
further information relating to contaminated land and noise
Environment Agency – No objections to the proposal but recommends a condition relating to
surface water.
United Utilities – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections but recommends the site
is well fenced and secure.
Manchester Ship Canal – No objections to the proposal but comments that no materials should
pollute the Canal during the construction phase and any foul sewer outfall will require permission
from the Manchester Ship Canal Company.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 10th August 2006.
A site notice was displayed on 10th August 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
L For Leather, Eccles
Allenby International, Boysnope Wharf, Eccles
Autobase, Boysnope Wharf, Eccles
J L House Security, Boysnope Wharf, Eccles
A _ G Salvage, Boysnope Wharf, Eccles
Boysnope Park Golf Club, Boysnope Wharf, Eccles,
Berley Sheds, 1 Boysnope Wharf, Eccles
AFI Aerial Platforms, Boysnope Wharf, Eccles
First Avenue Metals, Boysnope Wharf, Eccles
Boysnope Farm, Liverpool Road, Eccles
The Bungalow, Boysnope Farm, Liverpool Road, Eccles
Barton Salvage, Boysnope Wharf, Eccles
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of objection / representation in relation to the application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
DP3: Quality in New Developments
EC8 – Town Centres, Retail, Office and Leisure development
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
DP1: Regional Development Principles
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: E4/9 - Sites for Employment Development
Other policies: ST3 – Employment Supply
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
W1 – Waste Management
A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10 – Provision or Car Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
DEV6 – Incremental Development
EN16 – Contaminated Land
E1 – Strategic Regional Site, Barton
ST11 – Location of New Development
EN9 – Wildlife Corridors
DES10 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable, whether the proposal would provide adequate access into the site;
whether there would be an unacceptable impact on the highway network; whether the applicant
would make an appropriate contribution to the provision of transport infrastructure; whether issues
of contamination have been taken into account, whether the layout and design of the development is
acceptable; and whether the proposal complies with the relevant provisions of the Adopted UDP. I
will deal with each in turn below.
Principle of development
Draft Policy DP1 states that proposals and schemes should be located so as to make effective use of
land, buildings and infrastructure. They should promote appropriate mixes within a site.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Policy E4/9 allocates the application site for office, light industry, general industry, storage and
distribution. The policy states a range of employment uses would be appropriate on this site. The
policy continues that any development will be required to make an appropriate financial
contribution to the provision of transport infrastructure. Development should improve the
appearance of and public access to both the River Irwell Old Course and the Manchester Ship
Canal, as well as presenting a positive image at this gateway to Irlam. The role of the River Irwell
Old course as an important wildlife corridor and habitat should be protected and where possible
enhanced.
EC8 states that office developments that generate a significant number of trips should be directed to
suitable locations within or adjoining main city and town centres.
ST3 states a good range of local employment opportunities will be secured by maintaining an
adequate supply and variety of land and enabling the diversification of the local economy.
Policy DEV6 states that on sites immediately adjacent to an area identified for major development,
planning permission will not be granted for incremental development that would unacceptably
hamper or reduce the development options for that wider area.
All the sites considered within Policy E4 are considered to accord with the sequential approach set
out in Policy ST11 (Location of new development) and be in accordance with Policy ST3 which
relates to employment supply. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in land use
terms.
The application site currently benefits from extant outline planning permission for the erection of
one warehouse unit and five office units with associated car parking. The proposal would create
employment uses within the site. The applicant has agreed to enter into a S106 agreement to
provide an appropriate financial contribution to the provision of transport infrastructure, the details
of which are to be agreed. In addition the proposal would improve access to the River Irwell Old
Course and the Manchester Ship Canal, which can both be accessed via a public footpath that runs
to the south of the site. The footpath is currently overgrown. The footpath, although outside the
development area, would be fenced along the boundary edge, whilst landscaping within the site will
ensure the footpath is better observed from the proposed development. I would consider the
proposed development would be in accordance with Policies E4/9 and ST3.
The application site is adjacent to the Strategic Regional Site, Barton (Policy E1) where the
proposed Salford Reds stadium is to be located and there is a current planning application for the
Port Salford development. The proposed application would not directly affect the development of
this site for such uses. I would therefore consider the proposal would be in accordance with Policy
DEV6.
Design and Layout
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality
and appropriateness of proposed materials.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Adopted Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
Adopted Policy DES9 states that landscaping should be of a high quality, reflect the character of the
area and the development, not detract from safety and security and form an integral part of the
development
Policy DES10 seeks to encourage the inclusion of design measures which reduce criminal activity.
This is supplemented by Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’ which provides
detailed guidance on designing out crime for new developments.
The proposed five office units would be located to the front of the site and would be arranged in a
courtyard style. The proposed office buildings would be located approximately 7m from the A57.
Each of the buildings would vary slightly in size; all the buildings would be two storeys in height
with a pitched roof. The proposed materials would be mostly brick for the external elevations and a
metal deck for the roof. I have attached a condition requiring samples of materials to be submitted
to ensure a high quality finish. The surrounding area consists of a few residential cottages and old
existing industrial units. I would consider the proposal to enhance the street scene especially from
the A57.
The proposed warehouse / industrial unit would be located to the rear of the site and would have a
minimal visual impact, if at all from the A57. The unit would measure 51m X 86m with a
maximum height of 14m with a pitched roof. The proposed materials would comprise of metal
profile cladding with complementary brick for the office element of the unit to match the design
principles of the office units. The proposed condition relating to materials would apply to this unit
to ensure a high quality finish to the design.
It is proposed to erect a sculpture incorporating the business park signage at the entrance to the site
and adjacent to the A57. The proposed sculpture would be a focal point within the street scene.
The specific design and details have yet to be agreed and a condition has been attached to ensure the
proposed sculpture would be appropriate in this location.
The majority of the surrounding units are commercial in nature with the exception of a small
number of residential units north of the site. The proposal would be in excess of 50m from these
dwellings.
The proposed development would leave a sufficient area for landscaping particularly on the
boundary with the A57. I have attached a condition requiring details of landscaping within the site.
I am satisfied that this will ensure that the landscaping meets the criteria of Adopted Policy DES9.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has no objection to the proposal but recommends that the
development is adequately fenced off and secure. The proposed landscape condition includes
details of boundary treatment, this will ensure the proposed development will be secure.
The proposal would be in excess of 50m from the wildlife corridor located to the South of the site.
There is an existing industrial estate between the applications site and the wildlife corridor. Lying
in excess of 100m to the East of the site is a wildlife corridor between which currently lies the golf
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
driving range car park and club house. I would not consider the proposal to have an impact on the
wildlife corridors.
I would consider the proposed design and layout of the development to be acceptable in this
location and would positively contribute to the street scene. The proposal is a considerable distance
from residential properties. I would therefore consider the proposal to be in accordance with the
policies DES1, DES7, DES10 and DES9.
Car Parking and Highway Issues
Adopted Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on highway safety or the ability of the Strategic Route Network to
accommodate appropriate traffic flows.
Adopted Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers,
cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that
the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
A Traffic Assessment has been submitted with the application. The proposal includes a number of
off site highway improvements. These include an extension of the public footpath up to the bus
stop to the north of the site, a toucan crossing and a central reservation to ensure no right turn from
exiting the site. The proposed access to the site would be provided from the existing access point
which currently serves the golf driving range. A proposed entrance to the site would be created
from the existing access road approximately 90m from the junction with the A57. I have attached a
condition to ensure the off site highway works are completed prior to commencement of
development. I have no objections on highway safety grounds and would consider the proposal to
be in accordance with Policy A8.
The proposed level of car parking associated with the office business park would comprise of 101
car parking spaces of which 6 would be for disabled use. In addition the proposal would provide 10
cycle spaces and 3 motorcycle spaces. The proposed warehouse / industrial unit would provide 80
parking spaces, of which 4 would be for disabled use. In addition there would be 5 cycle spaces and
3 motorcycle spaces associated with the unit. The maximum level of car parking as set out in the
UDP for the office use would be 101 car parking spaces, for the warehouse / industrial use the
maximum car parking spaces would be 92 spaces. I would consider this level of parking to be
acceptable and in accordance with policy A10 and have no objections on highway safety grounds.
Other Issues
Policy W1 states that applications for landfill and landraising will only be granted where provision
is made for the progressive working of the site in order to minimise the area of working at any
particular time.
Policy EN16 states that proposals on sites known or thought to be contaminated will require the
submission of a site assessment as part of the planning application. Remedial measures agreed as
part of any planning permission will be required to be completed at the first step of any
development.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
The proposal scheme seeks to raise the land level to form a plateau on which the proposed
development would be built. The land raising is required as the current site levels would be too
steep for HGV access and the proposed development would be mostly concealed from the A57 thus
not providing a gateway into Irlam in accordance with Policy E4/9. The proposed development
platform will be constructed by filling the site with materials excavated from other civil
engineering contracts and with other materials permitted by the Waste and Materials Licensing
Regulations 2005.
A site investigation report has been submitted with the application which includes details of the
proposed land raising. The report has been assessed by the Strategic Director of Environmental
Services, who has no objections in principle to the proposed development and submitted
information but has recommended additional details be submitted in relation to gas membranes and
the remediation process. I have attached a condition.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
A number of amendments to the layout of the scheme including the provision of additional
disabled, cycle and motorcycle spaces have been negotiated with the applicant. The proposal
would provide off site highway improvements, in addition the applicant is willing to enter into a
S106 agreement to secure an appropriate financial contribution to the provision of transport
infrastructure, the details of which are to be agreed.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development to be acceptable. I consider the
proposed design and layout to be acceptable in this location, I am satisfied that the conditions will
ensure that the landscaping, materials and off site highway works would be of a suitably high
standard and that future users would not be detrimentally affected by contamination. The
application accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and there
are no material considerations, which outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the
application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the off site highway improvements and an appropriate
financial contribution to the provision of transport infrastructure, and Section 278 of the Highways
Act 1990 to facilitate highway improvement works on the A57.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 18 months of the commencement of development and
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the external elevations and roofs of the development shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the
approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
5. Prior to first occupation of any unit the detailed design and siting of the proposed sculpture /
sign shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
approved sculpture / sign shall be erected prior to first occupation of any of the units, unless
otherwise agreed in writing.
6. Prior to the commencement of development an external lighting scheme shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented in full prior to the occupation of any of the units.
7. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the car parking provision
site shall be laid out and completed in accordance with Drawing No. MH460-01 Revision C
prior to first occupation of any of the units.
8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the location
and design of cycle storage within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Such approved cycle storage shall be constructed in accordance
with the approved details and shall be made available for use prior to the first occupation of any
unit and retained thereafter.
9. Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved the associated off site highway
works, including a toucan crossing, extended footpath to the bus stop and physical barrier to
ensure no right turn from the existing access on to the A57 shall be completed in full in
accordance with the Transport Statement . (The Traffic Transport and Highway Consultancydated June 2006 and Drawing No. M06012-A-006) unless otherwise agreed in writing.
10. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not commence until a Planning
Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 has been made and
lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning Authority has given its
approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a sum to be agreed as required by
Policy E4 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan will be paid to the Local
Planning Authority for the provision of transport infrastructure or such purposes as agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
11. Prior to first occupation of any of the units and unless otherwise agreed in writing a green travel
plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a
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
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
mechanisms, travel plan coordination, and the provision of travel information and marketing.
The initiatives contained within the approved plan shall be implemented and shall be in place
prior to the first occupation of the school building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
12. Prior to the commencement of development an investigation to ascertain the presence of
newts on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The investigation shall include measures to relocate newts on the site and such
works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved report. The report should be
undertaken in accordance with a methodology to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority and should the presence of great crested newts be found then appropriate measures
must be taken to incorporate their habitat within the development in accordance with the
approved report.
13. 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 between the hours 07.00 to 23.00hrs and is specified as any 5 minutes time
period outside of the specified times.
14. Unless otherwise agreed in writing no development authorised by this permission shall take
place unless and until the Local Planning Authority has received and approved in writing a site
operating statement in relation to the provision of contractors parking at the construction site,
noise and vibration,, dust mitigation, ecology, neighbourhood liaison, water management and
pollution control (discharge to water and site drainage), waste management, materials storage
and handling, emergencies & accidents, traffic management, and no development or activities
related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating
statement.
15. 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
5. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
6. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
7. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
8. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes in accordance with Policy
A10 of the Adopted UDP.
9. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
10. To ensure that transport capacity is available in accordance with Policy E4 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. Reason: In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance
with Policy A1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
12. In order to safeguard any great crested newts on the site in accordance with policy EN10 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
13. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
14. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
15. To prevent the pollution of any watercourse in accordance with Policy EN18.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
3. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980.
4. 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.
5. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Environment
Directorate (Tel: (0161) 737 0551
6. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
above.
7. Please note the planning permisison relates to the following plans.
Drawing No. Revision
M06012-A-06 A
MH460-01
C
MH460-03
A
MH460-04
A
MH460-05
A
MH460-06
MH460-07
MH460-08
MH460-09
MH460-10
MH460-11
APPLICATION No:
06/53224/FUL
APPLICANT:
Vermont Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
Land West Of Damask Avenue On West Of Adelphi Street
Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of mixed use development (maximum 25 storeys)
comprising 223 residential units, 1254 sq.m of A1,A3,A4 and B1
retail/office floorspace together with 110 basement car parking
spaces, new riverside walkway and construction of new
vehicular and pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application was presented to a briefing of the Panel on 9 November 2006.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
The application relates to vacant land on the western side of Adelphi Street that lies between the
road and the Irwell river. The site is in a prominent location and is highly visible from both the A6
along Crescent and from the Meadows. The rectangular site covers 0.57 hectare and is bounded to
the north by a wide pedestrian walkway beyond which is residential development and to the south
by vacant land that is also the subject of a planning application for redevelopment. To the east is
the University owned Adelphi Building and to the north of that building, semi-detached properties
on Damask Avenue. The site overlooks the University Meadows. There are well established
residential areas to the north and east and on the south side of Adelphi Street beyond the immediate
vicinity of the site that consist mainly of post-war high density housing predominantly two storeys
in height. The site measures approximately 135m by 50m and is currently occupied by a vacant
industrial shed and a three storey 1950s depot building. The existing buildings on the site are
falling into disrepair and there has been some recent demolition on the site.
The adjacent development site that is also the subject of a current application also appears on this
agenda and both sets of architects have developed their plans for their sites with some degree of
collaboration, particularly with regard to height and massing.
The scale of buildings around the site varies from the multi storey Maxwell Building across the
Meadows to the two and three storey housing to the north of the site.
There is no dominant style of buildings in the vicinity of the site with existing buildings ranging
from derelict industrial buildings to the north and south to the distinctive Victorian former Salford
Royal Hospital to the south west with its modern extension closer to this site. There are clusters of
older listed buildings around Bank Place to the south and west of the site that form the historic grain
to the wider Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area.
It is proposed to demolish all the existing buildings on the site and erect mixed use development
with 1,254sq.m of commercial floorspace on lower floors and residential accommodation on upper
floors and away from the key road frontage. The development would incorporate basement parking
and public realm areas including a new riverside walkway and piazza. The commercial floorspace
would be capable of subdivision and permission is sought for A1 retail, A3 restaurant/café, A4
drinking and B1 office use. The applicant has stated that it is intended that no more than 650sq.m of
the commercial floorspace would be used by A1, A3 or A4 uses and that this would ensure that just
under half of the commercial space would be offices. This commercial space represents
approximately 9% of the total net floorspace of the proposal.
The development would also provide 223 dwellings at a density of 391 dwellings per hectare.
The mix of dwelling types is as follows:75 one-bed apartments (34%)
126 two-bed apartments (56%)
18 three-bed apartments (8%)
4 four-bed townhouses (2%)
In addition over 65% of the dwellings have a floor area in excess of 57sq.m.
A total of 110 parking spaces would be provided and vehicular access would be from Adelphi
Street.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
The proposal seeks to respond to the site by incorporating two principal elements. Firstly a four
storey ‘U’ shaped block with active ground floor elevations facing Adelphi Street and the piazza,
and with a seven storey block set back from the Adelphi Street frontage facing the River Irwell.
The ends of this block reduce in height at the northern end of the site in response to the proximity of
the adjacent low-rise housing. The second element is a 23 storey tower adjacent to the southern
boundary of the site and the proposed vehicular crossing over the River Irwell. The public piazza
would be formed between these two principal elements of the scheme with a private courtyard
being formed in the centre of the ‘U’ shaped block. The bridge does not form part of this
application.
The closest dwellings that face the site are those on Linen Court to the north that would be 17m
from the four storey element of the building, 23m from the seven storey element and 90m from the
proposed tower.
The material palette would be kept to a minimum. The base of the scheme would be stone with
terracotta cladding to the lower storeys. The tower would be a mix of metal cladding and zinc.
Pedestrian access within and around the site is to be enhanced as part of the development through
the provision of the riverside walkway and the new public space within the development.
The applicant has undertaken an employment analysis that shows that the proposals would
represent a significant increase in employment activity on the site (based on use of the existing
buildings on the site).
The applicant has submitted statements on contaminated land, traffic, sunlight, acoustics, wind,
archaeology and bats with the application.
SITE HISTORY
A full planning application for the redevelopment of the site was first lodged in October 2004
(04/49408/FUL). This was a mixed use scheme including 295 dwellings. This application was
withdrawn in January 2005.
The same scheme but with additional information was resubmitted in January 2005
(04/49880/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends conditions regarding
contaminated land and noise.
United Utilities – No objections providing the site is drained on a separate system with only foul
drainage connected into the foul sewer..
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – The site is within Central Salford URC’s
Primary Transformation Area as identified by the URC Vision and Regeneration Framework,
which is the focus of the URC’s activities in Central Salford.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Specifically, it falls within the Chapel Street and Crescent Transformation Area where the objective
is to restore and revitalise Chapel Street as the heart of Salford and revitalise the area’s cultural
assets as unique catalysts for attracting creative people and enterprise. From Exchange Greengate
to the University of Salford, Salford’s creative quarter will be a pedestrian friendly destination for a
variety of activities, including shopping, working, promenading, creativity and enjoying urban life.
The relevant priority project within this area is the creation of a vibrant new urban quarter centred
upon the University of Salford and Crescent District, where new commercial, residential and
University related development, including ground floor retail development and research facilities
will combine with the provision of new high quality public realm. The current application, by
introducing a population to the area and providing space for ground floor commercial units,
certainly supports these objectives.
There are also two related priority projects: 1) the creation of a boulevard along Crescent and
Chapel Street, involving calming the traffic flow and implementing a landscaping plan and 2) the
revitalisation of the Meadows, ensuring that this large area of open space can be fully used as an
important community asset and one of the principal open spaces within the city.
The site is also within the Irwell Corridor Transformation Area where the objective is to celebrate
the river as a distinctive landscape feature that will be accessible and integral to outdoor life; to link
Central Salford to its neighbourhoods and to improve the attractiveness of key sites for
development.
The relevant priority project in this area is the river walkway being taken forward in the joint
Salford/Manchester ‘Irwell Riverside – Connecting Two Great Cities’ Living Landmarks Big
Lottery Bid, which has now been approved through to the second round. The river walkway and
key sites along it will be improved to a standard that will provide functional spaces for land and
water-based recreation and focal points. The current planning application supports these
objectives, by making provision for a river walkway.
The applicants have revised their previous proposal for this site in line with advice from Urban
Vision and Central Salford URC. The applicants have generally adopted the principles of the
Adelphi Development Framework in their proposed scheme, in terms of the mix of uses and design
aspirations, and in addition providing land to facilitate (i) the creation of a boulevard on Adelphi
Street, (ii) the creation of a riverside walkway and (iii) the future provision of a new vehicular and
a pedestrian bridge to cross the River Irwell. The payment of a half share each of the estimated cost
of the road bridge abutments has also been agreed with the applicants as part of the Section 106
Agreement.
The URC now supports the revised application subject to the satisfactory resolution of a number of
outstanding issues, which may be resolved in either amendments to the planning application or the
drafting of the legal agreement. These issues are:
Compatability of the setting out of both schemes with:
o the general arrangement of the preparatory road bridge design both above and
below ground
o other elements of the Adelphi Development Framework, including the 2m set back
on Adelphi Street and at least a 6m set back adjacent to the riverside.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Control over the strip of land on the north boundary that is required for the creation of
the approach road for the road bridge. Ownership is sought. If this is not possible,
reservation of the land for seven years is sought, with appropriate access and
construction rights.
Heads of terms for the Section 106 Agreement need to set out clearly the relationship
between Salford City Council and the developers over the delivery of the road bridge
and foot bridge including full co-operation over:
i) the detailed design of the bridge, including the disclosure of all relevant information,
site surveys and ground investigations
ii)enabling and construction works, including access to sites, ability to carry out
abutment works, other enabling works and construction both during the developer’s
construction periods and after their completion. Indemnity for later disruption will be
sought.
Full co-operation with Salford City Council / Urban Vision / Central Salford URC over
the design, specification and implementation of the Irwell City Park Riverside
Walkway is required.
Full co-operation with Salford City Council / Urban vision / Central Salford URC over
the design, specification and implementation of the Adelphi Boulevard is required.
The proposed materials need to be agreed via a condition to ensure that they are of a
suitable quality for these highly visible and prominent sites.
Finally we have an outstanding concern about the specific proposed materials for the 23 storey
tower. We would expect the final choice of material to be resolved to the satisfaction of the
development control officer before the application is determined.
Environment Agency – Now has no objection in principle to the proposed development but
requests that conditions be attached regarding contamination.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – There is an archaeological interest for this site.
Adelphi Sizing Works is shown on the 1844-9 OS 5 foot map as well as early examples of workers
housing in the form of two ‘courts’. These structures are also shown on Bancks’ map of 1831.
Various features of industrial archaeological interest are shown including boiler houses, dye tubs
and a reservoir. The archaeology of the textile industry is very important to the Manchester and
Salford area and it is believed that this site has considerable below ground archaeological potential.
A condition requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological works is required.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Unit – Objects to the proposed development.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – The site is within reasonable walking
distance of the bus stops on Chapel Street / Crescent (A6) that form part of the Manchester – Eccles
Quality Bus Corridor. These bus stops offer access to frequent services to a large number of
destinations including Manchester, Eccles, Bolton, Swinton and Leigh. The bus stops on Adelphi
Street offer access to a Monday-Saturday hourly daytime service between Manchester, Broughton,
Pendleton, Hope Hospital and Swinton. Future residents and staff of this proposal would therefore
have access to a choice of travel mode, which should help to reduce the number of car journeys
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
otherwise generated by this development. Furthermore, the use of this site for high density
residential development is supported as it maximises the benefits of the good public transport
accessibility.
Salford Crescent railway station is currently just beyond reasonable walking distance from the site
(800m in this instance). It would be possible to reduce the walking distance to less than 800m and
improve the public transport accessibility of the site with a combination of bridge links across the
Irwell and a safe, convenient pedestrian environment between the site and Salford Crescent station.
The supporting information refers to new vehicle and pedestrian bridges from the site across the
river to Spike Island but no reference is made to the provision of a pedestrian bridge on the other
side of Spike Island across to the University campus south of Peel Park. A bridge in this location
would help complete the walking route between the site and Salford Crescent station improving
access to rail services for both future employees and residents of the development. Therefore
GMPTE suggest that it would be reasonable to seek a financial contribution from the applicant
towards the cost of improving this walking route.
It is encouraging to note the relatively low level of car parking provision accompanying this
application. In an area well served by public transport such as this site, the aspiration should be to
have a reduced amount of car parking in new developments in order to assist in the promotion of
more sustainable travel patterns, and to capitalise on the advantages of the public transport
provision in the area.
It is important to influence people’s travel patterns at the beginning of occupation and therefore,
although the site is accessible by public transport, GMPTE would expect a travel plan to
accompany this application, to help encourage future occupants to use sustainable modes of travel.
The travel plan should look at staff, resident and visitor travel and aim to maximise the benefits of
the site’s location in relation to the public transport network; to reduce the number of car journeys
that could otherwise be generated by this development; and also to seek to facilitate access by
means other than the car.
Given the total amount of commercial accommodation proposed, it is considered appropriate that
an ‘umbrella’ travel plan be requested to cover all the commercial development on the site with the
aim of reducing the amount of staff travel by car. It is appreciated that at this stage there may not be
particular occupiers in mind, however, an ‘interim travel plan’ could be submitted with an
undertaking that a ‘final travel plan’ will be submitted and adopted by individual occupiers, once
the site is occupied.
Residential travel plan measures could contribute to raising awareness of the public transport
services in the area and encouraging their use, these could include the following:a buyers / tenants pack including public transport and cycle route information, location
maps of nearby services
provision of a free one year travel pass with the purchase price / rental of each residential
unit
development of an internet site with public transport information
personalised journey planning
improved pedestrian access to public transport facilities
It is suggested that any development, submission, implementation and monitoring of a travel plan
be attached as a condition of planning consent.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
CABE – CABE were consulted on the City Council’s original masterplan exercise for the Adelphi
area and commented on the previous detailed application. This submitted scheme is very different
from that previous scheme and therefore I have only included CABE’s comments as they related to
the site in general and the masterplan:We appaud the initial moves by Salford to regenerate Chapel Street and turn the River Irwell into a
public amenity, but we think it is incumbent on the URC and the planning authority to provide clear
development guidance addressing quantum, scale and height within the broader context of the site
before major schemes such as this one can be assessed. This is particularly important given the
opportunity to provide a high quality, public river walkway and access to open space across the
river. Given that this site and the one adjacent to it are the first major developments within this
regeneration area, it is important that a high design quality precedent is set. We have reviewed this
scheme in the knowledge of its relationship to the development proposed on the adjacent site, but
we would like to question how these schemes fit into the URC vision.
We think that any proposed masterplan should carefully consider a strategy for the river front,
access to it and any position of the new bridge links.
We support the mix of uses proposed. However, nothing that we have seen convinces us that this
level of development is appropriate for this site. We acknowledge that this site is complex due to
change in levels but this should not be an excuse for accepting lower design standards.
In conclusion, we would recommend a fundamental rethink of the design approach to developing
this site. In our view it would be beneficial if Salford City Council and the URC prioritise
establishing a robust development framework and unsure that development proposals coming
forward will collectively deliver a sustainable, high quality place that builds on its unique
character and assets.
Ramblers’ Association – Given the attractive provisions envisaged for pedestrians, especially the
riverside walkway, we support this imaginative proposal.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Salford University
Adelphi public house
1 to 20 Damask Avenue
50 to 62 Cannon Street
37 to 57 Meadow Road
1 to 44 (incl) Linen Court
100 Silk Street
REPRESENTATIONS
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
I have received one letter of objection from the University in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:Concern that the height and location will severely limit potential development of the
Adelphi Building site on Peru Street by generating possible objections from a residential
location dwarfing our site.
The proposed development does not site well with the spirit of the Adelphi Development
Framework document as 25 stories is too many and such an ediface along the river frontage
must detract from its potential.
Design and height are inappropriate in the environs of the river and adjacent parks.
A precedent would be set for other developments with riverside frontages attaining such
heights nearer to the A6 with such potential future developments seriously compromising
any vision by affecting the skyline when viewed from within the area and from the
Meadows in particular.
There would be significant increases in traffic that would seriously compromise students,
staff and visitors to the University’s buildings.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific: MX1 – Development in Mixed-Use Areas
Other policies: ST7 Mixed Use Development, ST11 Location of New Development, DES1
Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES3 Design of Public Space, DES4
Relationship of Development to Public Space, DES5 Tall Buildings, DES6 Waterside
Development, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime, H1 Supply of
Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development, A1 Transport
Assessments and Travel Plans, A8 Impact on the Highway Network, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle
and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, DEV6 Incremental Development, EN6 Irwell
Valley, EN7D Wildlife Corridors, EN16 Flood Risk and Surface Water, EN17A Resource
Conservation, R5 Countryside and Access Network
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Regional Development Principles, MCR2 Regional centre and Inner Areas of Manchester
City Region, MCR4 Northern Part of the Manchester City Region.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the development is
acceptable, whether the mix of uses is acceptable, whether the scale, massing and design of the
development is of sufficiently high quality in this important part of the city, whether the highway
situation is adequate and whether the bridge is properly located, whether there is sufficient parking
and open space provision and whether the proposed materials are acceptable.
Principle of the Development
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Policy H1 requires that an adequate supply of housing be brought forward with higher densities
being required at accessible locations such as this site. Policy H1 also requires development to
contribute toward a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure
and affordability.
Policy ST11 seeks to ensure that new development is located on the most sustainable sites within
the City and that less sustainable sites are only brought forward when necessary. The policy is
based on the sequential approaches to development that are set out in national policy guidance and
policy DP1 of Regional Planning Guidance for the North-West.
Policy MX1/1 states that the intention of the Council is to develop this area of the City as a vibrant
mixed-use area with a broad range of uses and activities. Appropriate uses include housing, offices
and retail uses. In determining whether a proposed mix of uses is appropriate, regard will be had to
a number of factors, including the positive impact of the development on the regeneration of the
wider area, the use on adjoining sites and the extent to which the proposed development would
support the objective of maintaining a mix and balance of uses throughout the mixed-use area, the
prominence of the location and the existing and previous use of the site. Paragraph 2 of the
reasoned justification to policy MX1 states that:In particular the policy will be used to ensure that residential development does not unduly
predominate, to the detriment of the vitality and sustainability of the area. On larger sites,
single use residential developments are unlikely to be acceptable, and a significant
proportion of non-residential uses will normally be required.
Policy DP3 of the Regional Planning Guidance for the North West states that new development
must demonstrate good design quality and respect for its setting.
The URC’s published draft Vision and Regeneration Framework identifies this site and the
immediate surrounding area as a key riverfront urban and neighbourhood node comprising public
realm and open space. The Framework sets the stage for ensuring the highest quality of urban and
architectural excellence. The main proposals of the Framework include:i) that the River Irwell corridor must become a primary open space system defined by world class
urban projects and parks. The Oldfield Road, Adelphi Street, Silk Street axis will become a
primary north/south boulevard linking Salford Quays, Ordsall, Chapel Street, Middlewood, the
Bolton-Bury Canal, the River Irwell and the Lower Broughton renewal area.
ii) the Meadows will be the green heart of Chapel Street – a boulevard will become a beautiful
terrace, overlooking a high quality, landscaped, public space by the riverside within walking
distances of the centre of Salford and Manchester’s commercial district.
iii) historic buildings will be reclaimed and renewed and high quality new buildings and spaces
created to form a new heart in the old city.
The City Council’s Adelphi Development Framework states that the regeneration of the Adelphi
Street area should result in a vibrant mixed-use area where University functions are complemented
by residential development and other commercial, leisure and retail uses. It should be characterised
by the best modern architecture, high quality public spaces and a distinctive waterside frontage. It
should be an area where there is on-street activity and pedestrian movement.
It also states that development of the area should provide a mix of uses: residential, retail,
commercial, leisure and educational uses. Sites that are currently occupied by, or were previously
used for, employment uses must provide appropriate replacement floorspace. Single use residential
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
schemes are unlikely to be acceptable and should include a significant proportion of non-residential
uses. Active uses should be located at ground floor level on Adelphi Street and to public open
spaces. Active frontages should be provided on the riverside walkway.
The document also states that within the residential provision of mixed-use schemes, 10% of units
should comprise 3 bedroom apartments, no more than 15% of apartments should be studios and at
least 50% of units should be more than 57sq.m in size.
The Framework states that new development should be of high density to reflect the location of the
site within the regional centre and states that new development should provide:
building heights of no more than five storeys along Adelphi Street, decreasing to two-three
storeys adjoining the Trinity area where lower height buildings predominate.
Taller buildings are encouraged behind the Adelphi Street elevation, at gateway sites and to
public spaces providing they are well designed.
Variety in massing (and other visual treatment) to ensure that large developments appear as
a series of individual buildings.
The site is previously developed in an accessible location close the A6 main bus route and within
acceptable walking distance of the Regional Centre. The principle of the redevelopment of the site
is therefore acceptable and in accordance with national government guidance and outline planning
permission has already been given for the residential development of this site. The application
proposes a development of one, two and three bed apartments and proposes a size of apartment in
excess of the standards set out in the draft supplementary planning document on housing. The
wider surrounding area is characterised by predominantly family housing. I consider that in this
location close to the regional centre, the level of provision is appropriate and in accordance with
policy H1.
The Adelphi Street area includes a number of key sites for which the City Council and the Central
Salford URC are keen to promote a design-led approach to regeneration. The future of this area is
to be looked at in conjunction with the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy and the URC’s Vision
for Central Salford. The site lies within a very important area for the City and it is important that
the area is developed in a comprehensive manner that is planned and coordinated to maximise the
benefits of each site. The City Council’s Adelphi Vision for Development has been adopted by the
City Council and, although not a supplementary planning document, weight should be attached to
it. It is important that no individual development should compromise the successful
implementation of the comprehensive redevelopment of this important part of the City.
An analysis of the floor space given over to individual uses in the development shows that
approximately 10% of the gross floorspace in the proposed scheme is given over to non-residential
uses. It is considered that this does represent a satisfactory mix of uses in accordance with policy
MX1.
Design, Scale and Massing
Policy DES1 states that developments will be required to respond to their physical context, respect
the positive character of the local area and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness via
a number of factors that include the scale and size of the building, its contribution in the street scene
and the quality of the proposed materials.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public space,
that public space must be designed to:
i) have a clear role and purpose, responding to established or proposed local economic, social,
cultural and environmental needs;
ii) reflect and enhance the character and identity of the area;
iii) form an integral part of, and provide an appropriate setting for, surrounding developments;
iv) be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit;
v) be of an appropriate scale;
vi) connect to established pedestrian routes and other public spaces; and
vii) minimise, and make provision for, maintenance requirements.
Policy DES5 states that tall buildings will be permitted where they meet a number of criteria.
Those criteria include that the scale of the development is appropriate to its context and location;
that the location is highly accessible to public transport, walking and cycling; that the building
would relate positively to and interact well with the adjacent public realm; that the building would
be of the highest quality design; that the building would make a positive addition to the skyline and
would not detract from important views and that there would be no unacceptable impact on the
setting of a listed building or on the character or appearance of a conservation area. The reasoned
justification for the policy goes on to state that tall buildings are more likely to be appropriate
within the mixed-use areas identified in policy MX1.
Policy DES6 states that all new development adjacent to the River Irwell will be required to
facilitate pedestrian access to, along and, where appropriate, across the waterway by the provision
of:
A safe, attractive and overlooked waterside walkway, accessible to all and at all times of
the day, where this is compatible with the commercial role of the waterway;
o Pedestrian access links between the waterside walkway and other key pedestrian routes;
and
o Where appropriate, ground floor uses that generate pedestrian activity, and larger waterside
spaces to act as focal points for public activity
It also states that development will be required to, where possible, protect, improve or provide
wildlife habitats. In addition it states that all built development along the waterway will be required
to
face onto the water and incorporate entrances onto the waterfront where appropriate;
be of the highest standard of design, creating a positive addition to the waterside
environment and providing an attractive elevation to it;
be of a scale sufficient to frame the edge of the waterside; and
enhance views from, of, across and along the waterway, and provide visual links to the
waterside from surrounding areas.
The proposed materials that are used are of good quality but are not normally used on residential
buildings to the extent that is proposed here. During the pre-application process the applicant was
asked to provide examples of where the proposed main material, the metal panels, have been used
in similar circumstances. The examples that the applicant provided were both office developments.
The example in Manchester is an excellent five storey building that has recently been refurbished
but the proposed material is used on the rear of the building facing a yard and a narrow back street
that is used minimally by pedestrian or vehicular traffic and which does not provide through vehicle
access. The other example is in Ipswich and is a new building that houses Ipswich’s planning
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
department. The building again is five storeys and the material is again only used on the rear
elevation that overlooks the car parking area to the building.
The use of metal on residential buildings is common but it is used either as one of a number of
different but complementary materials or a higher quality metal such as zinc or lead is used. It is
considered therefore that the extensive use of a flat metal material such as the one proposed would
not be appropriate and when considered alongside the design, scale, massing and siting of the
proposed tower, would result in a development of insufficient design quality.
The architects for the scheme have sought to achieve a high quality of design and have made
considerable amendments to the scheme to improve it. It is considered that a high quality design
has not been achieved and I am not convinced that the proposed material would, given the size,
siting, massing and design of the building, that this development is not of the high quality required
in accordance with the development plan.
Impact on the adjacent Conservation Area
The site adjoins the Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area on its southern boundary. The site
beyond is another vacant development site though, as is the site to the south east across Adelphi
Street. The cluster of listed buildings around St Philips Church are some distance from the site.
The proposed tower would be located on that part of the site furthest from the Conservation Area
and the height of development along Adelphi Street has deliberately been kept to four storeys to
maintain the urban grain of the area. I do not therefore consider that the proposed development has
any detrimental effect on the Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area.
Effects of the development on neighbours
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
I have received one objection regarding the impact of the proposed development but this relates to a
University owned building that is currently occupied. I am satisfied that the proposed development
would not prejudice any possible future redevelopment of the Universities Adelphi Building.
The nearest existing residential properties that face the site are 17m from the four storey element of
the proposed building. These dwellings currently face a two storey building that is 14m from the
dwellings. A 4m wide landscaped pedestrian route separates the rear boundary of the dwellings
from the site. There would be no habitable room windows in the proposed development that would
face ant neighbouring dwelling. I have received no objections from any residential occupiers and
the siting and massing of the development has been amended to reduce the size of the building
where it is nearest to existing dwellings. Given the circumstances outlined above I do not therefore
consider that there would be any significant detrimental effect on the amenity of existing
neighbours.
With regard to future development on the adjacent site to the south the architects for both schemes
have worked together to ensure that both schemes are compatible. Interface distances between the
two developments are such that habitable windows would not face each other directly and would be
at least 14m away from each other.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
In conclusion, I consider that the scale and massing of the proposed development is such that there
would be no significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring property.
Highways, Parking and Public Transport
Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks maximum parking standards for all
developments. Within the emerging planning framework and in line with central government
advice there is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.
In July 2006 the Lead Member for Planning considered a report on the location of the proposed
road bridge across the river Irwell from Adelphi Street.
The City Council has been minded for some years to secure the provision of a road bridge over the
river to connect the Meadows and Spike Island with Adelphi Street thereby providing a route from
the communities in Lower Broughton to the rest of Salford. The new bridge is one of the
accessibility improvements identified in the Lower Broughton Design Code Supplementary
Planning Document and an indicative siting is shown within a broad area of land in the vicinity of
the junction of Peru Street and Adelphi Street.
The report to Lead Member set out the two main options for the position of the bridge.
1. Within the site owned by this applicant (as shown on the previous application)
2. Between the two development sites (as shown on this application)
The preferred position expressed in the report was the second option and it was this option that was
preferred by the Lead Member.
The traffic impact assessment submitted by the applicant shows that the proposed development
would not have a material impact on the local highway network.
There are 110 spaces provided within the development that represents just under 50% of the
apartments having a space. It is likely that people buying the apartments are doing so because of
their proximity to Chapel Street and the regional centre. These people may well not own, or have
need for a car. In addition there are now shared ownership schemes being set up within the regional
centre and it is anticipated in the near future that residents of apartments such as this will be able to
access cars as and when they are needed thereby further reducing the need for households to have
their own vehicle that is exclusively for their use alone.
I have received objections to the level of parking proposed that there is insufficient parking
provided for the proposed development. The parking levels are in accordance with policy in this
accessible location and I consider the parking levels proposed to be acceptable and would consider
a greater level of provision to be contrary to both good practice, government advice and planning
policy. In terms of highway safety I have no objections to the submitted scheme.
Open Space Provision and Landscaping
In accordance with policy H8 of the UDP and the draft SPD on planning obligations open space and
children’s play space can be accommodated off site through a financial contribution. This
application proposes 620 bed spaces, which equates to a commuted sum value of £334,800. In
addition, in accordance with the Chapel Street SPG, a contribution of £1000 per apartment would
be generated by the development for environmental improvements, a total of £557,800.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
The scheme provides significant areas of public realm that include the piazza and the riverside
walkway. In addition there is an approximately 40m by 18m private internal landscaped courtyard.
Other Objections Raised
i) That 25 stories is too many and that the scheme amounts to overdevelopment.
This is a location close to the regional centre where higher dwelling densities should be
encouraged and where it is right to provide apartments. The scheme contributes to the mix
of dwellings in this particular area and the siting and height of the building are considered
to be entirely appropriate. This has produced a scheme that is of high density but it is
considered that this is appropriate.
ii) That the development does not accord with the Adelphi Development Framework
The development is entirely consistent with the Development Framework with regard to
scale and massing. The Framework does not specify maximum heights of any proposed
gateway building.
iii) That the tower will be inappropriate in the environs of the river and adjacent parks.
It is considered that the Meadows is a potentially huge area of public open space that needs
to be framed in part by tall buildings. The two towers on either side of the new road bridge
will appropriately gate and mark this new river crossing and will serve as beacons in the
wider area. In addition I would point out that the Meadows covers a huge area,
approximately 4.8 hectares. The distance from the Maxwell building to this proposed
tower is approximately 350m. It is considered that within this context two towers of this
proposed height would be appropriate and necessary and in conformity with the Adelphi
Development Framework.
I consider that the objections of the Police Architectural Liaison Unit could be overcome through a
condition regarding ‘Secured by Design’ status.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The scheme has been considerably improved as a result of pre-application discussions and if
approved environmental improvements to the value of £557,800 would be generated.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the development is
acceptable, whether the mix of uses is acceptable, whether the scale, massing and design of the
development is of sufficiently high quality in this important part of the city, whether the highway
situation is adequate and whether the bridge is properly located, whether there is sufficient parking
and open space provision and whether the proposed materials are acceptable. All of these main
issues have been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant except for the issue of the proposed
materials. It is considered that, on balance, a tower clad entirely in glass and the metal proposed in
this scheme would not result in a building of the quality required by adopted planning policy. I
must therefore recommend that the application be refused for the following reason.
RECOMMENDATION:
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would, by reason of the proposed materials combined with the size,
scale, massing and design of the tower, not be of sufficient design quality and would therefore
be contrary to policies DES1, DES5 and DES6 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan, Policy DP3 of the Regional Planning Guidance for the North West and the Adelphi
Development Framework.
APPLICATION No:
06/53226/FUL
APPLICANT:
Wilberton Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Weir Site Adelphi Street Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of mixed use development (maximum 25 storey)
comprising 406 residential units, 3810 sq.m A1,A2,A3,A4 and
B1 retail/office floorspace together with 402 basement car
parking spaces, new riverside walkway and construction of new
vehicular and pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application was presented to a briefing of the Panel on 9 November 2006.
The application relates to land on the western side of Adelphi Street and lies between the road and
the Irwell river. The site is in a prominent location and is highly visible from both the A6 along
Crescent and from the Meadows. The site covers just less than 1 hectare and is bounded to the
north by vacant industrial land beyond which is residential development and to the south by vacant
land that is used as car parking by Salford University beyond which is a public house and former
school building now occupied by the University. To the east is the site of the former Farmer Norton
building. The site overlooks the University Meadows. An existing riverside walkway runs along
the boundary of the site with the river. The southern boundary of the site adjoins the
Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area. The wider area is the focus for a number of civic and
cultural buildings including Salford Cathedral, the main campus of Salford University, and the
former main Salford Magistrate’s Court and Salford Museum and Art Gallery. There are well
established residential areas to the north and east and on the south side of Adelphi Street beyond the
immediate vicinity of the site that consist mainly of post-war high density housing predominantly
two storeys in height. The site measures 155m by 65m and is currently occupied by a long vacant
brick built industrial building that is in a poor state of repair.
The scale of buildings around the site varies from the multi storey Maxwell Building across the
Meadows at the University to the three storey listed buildings in St Philips Square. Both adjoining
sites to the north and south are vacant redevelopment sites. The immediate vicinity of the site
though is characterised by cleared vacant sites.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
There is no dominant style of buildings in the vicinity of the site with existing buildings ranging
from derelict industrial buildings to the north and south to the distinctive Victorian former Salford
Royal Hospital to the south west with its modern extension closer to this site. There are clusters of
older listed buildings around Bank Place to the south and west of the site that form the historic grain
to the wider Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area.
It is proposed to demolish all the existing buildings on the site and erect a series of buildings, the
highest of which would be a 24 storey tower at the junction of Adelphi Street and two new public
squares leading to a new road bridge across the river and a new pedestrian footbridge. Neither
bridge forms part of this application. The proposed development is made up of a number of
constituent parts that can be broken down into separate distinct elements as follows:* The ‘Fingers’ – a series of ‘fingers’ that provide the maximum number of apartments
with views of the river and which define private garden courtyards that offer open views of
the river and the Meadows opposite. These ‘fingers’ are angled in a south-west direction so
that sunlight penetrates into the garden courtyards. They are six storeys in height above
street level and are separated from each other by a distance of 20m.
* The ‘Wall’ – a four storey element that runs along Adelphi Street and provides a strong
and active street frontage whilst enclosing the private garden courtyards. Gaps in the
‘wall’ provide access to the main residential cores from the street whilst also providing
pedestrians with glimpsed views into the development. A ‘moat’ created between the
‘wall’ and the back of pavement provides ventilation to the car parking and acts as a
defensible buffer to the residential units. B1 office units along this frontage to Adelphi
Street activate the street frontage.
* The ‘Chads’ – the ‘fingers’ run up over the ‘wall’ to create elements like ‘chads’ that peer
over the wall looking back towards Chapel Street to the south. These ‘chads’ provide the
scheme with a strong presence from Adelphi Street and mark the gaps in the ‘wall’ creating
gateways to the residential cores. The ‘chads’ are five storeys in height above the ‘wall’
with a storey void beneath. They are therefore ten storeys in height from street level.
Height in this location provides additional apartments without overshadowing the garden
courtyards during the afternoon and evening.
* The ‘Bank’ – the change in level between Adelphi Street and the river is used to conceal
the car parking. The car parking forms the landscaped ‘bank’ on which the private
courtyard gardens are formed. The front of the ‘bank’ is faced with two storeys of
residential accommodation in the form of townhouses lining the riverside walkway.
* The ‘Piazza’ – a major new public square would be located between the first and second
‘fingers’ to the south of the site closer to Chapel Street and Crescent. The new public
square provides a gateway space for the new pedestrian bridge and a focus for the schemes
mixed use activity.
* The ‘Beacon’ – the proposed new vehicular bridge is brought into the site at the common
boundary between this site and the site to the north approximately 30m to the north of the
Peru Street junction with Adelphi Street. New public space provides a gateway space for
the new road bridge and provides a secondary focus for the schemes mixed use activity. A
24 storey tower acts as a ‘beacon’, landmarking the new gateway and acting as a wayfinder
for people using the new river crossing. The top of the tower is stepped to provide a
distinctive skyline.
The development would provide a total of 406 apartments together with 3,800sq.m of commercial
floorspace comprising a mix of food and drink, retail and office uses, a new riverside walkway, new
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
public and private open spaces, car parking and pedestrian and vehicle access. There would be a
mix of one, two and three bedroomed dwellings. A total of 402 parking spaces would be provided
along with dropping off spaces in the public square. Vehicular access would be from the new road
that leads to the new road bridge.
The mix of apartment types is as follows:205 one-bed apartments (50.4%)
161 two-bed apartments (39.6%)
40 three-bed apartments and townhouses (10%)
In addition 47% of the apartments have a floor area in excess of 57sq.m.
The material palette would be kept to a minimum. The ‘wall’ would be traditional red brickwork
with recessed punched windows providing a solid edge to the private gardens beyond. The
northern sides of the ‘fingers’ and ‘chads’ that peer over the ‘wall’ would be solid but lightweight
stabilised copper metal horizontal panels. The south facing sides of the ‘fingers’ and ‘chads’ would
be lightweight and transparent with a greater amount of glazing and vertical cedar slats. The tower
would have the same palette of materials as the ‘fingers’ but would have a vertical orientation of
panels.
Pedestrian access within and around the site is to be enhanced as part of the development through
the provision of the riverside walkway and the new public square and access to the future
pedestrian bridge crossing the river.
The applicant has submitted statements on contaminated land, traffic, acoustics and bats with the
application.
SITE HISTORY
Outline planning permission was granted in July 2004 for the development of this site for
residential purposes (04/47628/OUT). This permission was for a development of 258 apartments,
1,935sq.m of food and drink floorspace, a 120 bed hotel, 2,490sq.m of retail and office floorspace
and a 1195sq.m health/leisure club including associated parking, vehicular and pedestrian access,
landscaping, open space and riverside walkway. All matters were reserved.
In April 2006 an appeal was lodged against the non-determination of a detailed scheme for 473
apartments together with 2120sq.m of food, drink and A1 retail uses, 590sq.m of offices, a new
riverside walkway, new public and private spaces, car parking and pedestrian and vehicular access.
The application included access to the new road bridge entirely within the site area and there was no
provision made for a separate pedestrian bridge. A report on the development was taken to the
Panel who decided to oppose the development on grounds of:Overdevelopment
Poor design
Inadequate mix of uses and apartment types
The poor positioning of the new bridge crossing the Irwell
The appeal is due to be heard by means of an inquiry in January 2007.
CONSULTATIONS
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends conditions regarding
contaminated land, noise and air quality.
United Utilities – No objections.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – The site is within Central Salford URC’s
Primary Transformation Area as identified by the URC Vision and Regeneration Framework,
which is the focus of the URC’s activities in Central Salford.
Specifically, it falls within the Chapel Street and Crescent Transformation Area where the objective
is to restore and revitalise Chapel Street as the heart of Salford and revitalise the area’s cultural
assets as unique catalysts for attracting creative people and enterprise. From Exchange Greengate
to the University of Salford, Salford’s creative quarter will be a pedestrian friendly destination for a
variety of activities, including shopping, working, promenading, creativity and enjoying urban life.
The relevant priority project within this area is the creation of a vibrant new urban quarter centred
upon the University of Salford and Crescent District, where new commercial, residential and
University related development, including ground floor retail development and research facilities
will combine with the provision of new high quality public realm. The current application, by
introducing a population to the area and providing space for ground floor commercial units,
certainly supports these objectives.
There are also two related priority projects: 1) the creation of a boulevard along Crescent and
Chapel Street, involving calming the traffic flow and implementing a landscaping plan and 2) the
revitalisation of the Meadows, ensuring that this large area of open space can be fully used as an
important community asset and one of the principal open spaces within the city.
The site is also within the Irwell Corridor Transformation Area where the objective is to celebrate
the river as a distinctive landscape feature that will be accessible and integral to outdoor life; to link
Central Salford to its neighbourhoods and to improve the attractiveness of key sites for
development.
The relevant priority project in this area is the river walkway being taken forward in the joint
Salford/Manchester ‘Irwell Riverside – Connecting Two Great Cities’ Living Landmarks Big
Lottery Bid, which has now been approved through to the second round. The river walkway and
key sites along it will be improved to a standard that will provide functional spaces for land and
water-based recreation and focal points. The current planning application supports these
objectives, by making provision for a river walkway.
The applicants have revised their previous proposal for this site in line with advice from Urban
Vision and central Salford URC. The applicants have generally adopted the principles of the
Adelphi Development Framework in their proposed scheme, in terms of the mix of uses and design
aspirations, and in addition providing land to facilitate (i) the creation of a boulevard on Adelphi
Street, (ii) the creation of a riverside walkway and (iii) the future provision of a new vehicular and
a pedestrian bridge to cross the River Irwell. The payment of a half share each of the estimated cost
of the road bridge abutments has also been agreed with the applicants as part of the Section 106
Agreement.
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
The URC now supports the revised application subject to the satisfactory resolution of a number of
outstanding issues, which may be resolved in either amendments to the planning application or the
drafting of the legal agreement. These issues are:

Compatability of the setting out of both schemes with:
o the general arrangement of the preparatory road bridge design both above and
below ground
o other elements of the Adelphi Development Framework, including the 2m set back
on Adelphi Street and at least a 6m set back adjacent to the riverside.

Control over the strip of land on the north boundary that is required for the creation of the
approach road for the road bridge. Ownership is sought. If this is not possible, reservation
of the land for seven years is sought, with appropriate access and construction rights.

Heads of terms for the Section 106 Agreement need to set out clearly the relationship
between Salford City Council and the developers over the delivery of the road bridge and
foot bridge including full co-operation over:
o the detailed design of the bridge, including the disclosure of all relevant
information, site surveys and ground investigations
o enabling and construction works, including access to sites, ability to carry out
abutment works, other enabling works and construction both during the
developer’s construction periods and after their completion. Indemnity for later
disruption will be sought.
1
Full co-operation with Salford City Council / Urban Vision / Central Salford URC over the
design, specification and implementation of the Irwell City Park Riverside Walkway is
required.
2
Full co-operation with Salford City Council / Urban vision / Central Salford URC over the
design, specification and implementation of the Adelphi Boulevard is required.
3
The proposed materials need to be agreed via a condition to ensure that they are of a
suitable quality for these highly visible and prominent sites.
Environment Agency – Originally objected to the application due to dwellings on the lowest level
adjacent to the riverside walkway were liable to flooding. The level of the riverside walkway has
been raised and the Agency has now withdrawn its objection to the scheme
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – There is an archaeological interest for this site.
Green’s plan of 1787-94 shows a Bank Mill situated alongside the river in this area, presumably fed
by a leat near the weir. By 1848 the site is occupied by Crescent Bleach Works and Adelphi
Logwood Mill. Various features of industrial archaeological interest are shown including an
engine house, chimneys and a reservoir. The archaeology of the textile industry is very important
to the Manchester and Salford area and it is believed that this site has considerable below ground
archaeological potential. A condition requiring the implementation of a programme of
archaeological works is required.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – Our concern is that this scheme will
generate crime and we object to the proposal. The main issues are:
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
the potential congestion at the intersection with Crescent. This is exacerbated by the large
proposed residential development to the north.
There are too many pedestrian access points, into the site off Adelphi Street at very narrow
and inappropriate pinch points, which exacerbates the means of controlling authorised
access to the individual buildings. If entrances are to be accessed off an internal court they
should be very visible and well overlooked otherwise we require main entrances to the
buildings to be directly off the main road.
The complex will attract nefarious and miscreant opportunists and access to the riverbank
may generate anti-social behaviour. Public access to the river bank should be controlled –
e.g limit access to the new buildings – the pathways will otherwise be adopted as a means
of rapidly leaving the scene of a crime without the appropriate means of controlling or
monitoring persons attempting to commit crime.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – The site is within reasonable walking
distance of the bus stops on Chapel Street / Crescent (A6) that form part of the Manchester – Eccles
Quality Bus Corridor. These bus stops offer access to frequent services to a large number of
destinations including Manchester, Eccles, Bolton, Swinton and Leigh. The bus stops on Adelphi
Street offer access to a Monday-Saturday hourly daytime service between Manchester, Broughton,
Pendleton, Hope Hospital and Swinton. Future residents and staff of this proposal would therefore
have access to a choice of travel mode, which should help to reduce the number of car journeys
otherwise generated by this development. Furthermore, the use of this site for high density
residential development is supported as it maximises the benefits of the good public transport
accessibility.
Salford Crescent railway station is currently just beyond reasonable walking distance from the site
(800m in this instance). It would be possible to reduce the walking distance to less than 800m and
improve the public transport accessibility of the site with a combination of bridge links across the
Irwell and a safe, convenient pedestrian environment between the site and Salford Crescent station.
The supporting information refers to new vehicle and pedestrian bridges from the site across the
river to Spike Island but no reference is made to the provision of a pedestrian bridge on the other
side of spike island across to the University campus south of Peel Park. A bridge in this location
would help complete the walking route between the site and Salford Crescent station improving
access to rail services for both future employees and residents of the development. Therefore
GMPTE suggest that it would be reasonable to seek a financial contribution from the applicant
towards the cost of improving this walking route.
It is unfortunate that the number of car parking spaces included in this application has risen
compared to the previous application on this site. In an area well served by public transport such as
this site, the aspiration should be to have a reduced amount of car parking in new developments in
order to assist in the promotion of more sustainable travel patterns, and to capitalise on the
advantages of the public transport provision in the area.
It is important to influence people’s travel patterns at the beginning of occupation and therefore,
although the site is accessible by public transport, GMPTE would expect a travel plan to
accompany this application, to help encourage future occupants to use sustainable modes of travel.
The travel plan should look at staff, resident and visitor travel and aim to maximise the benefits of
the site’s location in relation to the public transport network; to reduce the number of car journeys
that could otherwise be generated by this development; and also to seek to facilitate access by
means other than the car.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Given the total amount of commercial accommodation proposed, it is considered appropriate that
an ‘umbrella’ travel plan be requested to cover all the commercial development on the site with the
aim of reducing the amount of staff travel by car. It is appreciated that at this stage there may not be
particular occupiers in mind, however, an ‘interim travel plan’ could be submitted with an
undertaking that a ‘final travel plan’ will be submitted and adopted by individual occupiers, once
the site is occupied.
Residential travel plan measures could contribute to raising awareness of the public transport
services in the area and encouraging their use, these could include the following:a buyers / tenants pack including public transport and cycle route information, location
maps of nearby services
provision of a free one year travel pass with the purchase price / rental of each residential
unit
development of an internet site with public transport information
personalised journey planning
improved pedestrian access to public transport facilities
It is suggested that any development, submission, implementation and monitoring of a travel plan
be attached as a condition of planning consent.
CABE – CABE were consulted on the City Council’s original masterplan exercise for the Adelphi
area and commented on the previous detailed application that is now the subject of the appeal.
Their comments on that application were as follows:We applaud the initial moves by Salford to regenerate Chapel Street and turn the River Irwell into
a public amenity, but we think it is incumbent on the URC and the planning authority to provide
clear development guidance addressing quantum, scale and height within the broader context of
the site before major schemes such as this one can be assessed. This is particularly important given
the opportunity to provide a high quality, public river walkway and access to open space across the
river. Given that this site and the one adjacent to it are the first major developments within this
regeneration area, it is important that a high design quality precedent is set. We have reviewed this
scheme in the knowledge of its relationship to the development proposed on the adjacent site, but
we would like to question how these schemes fit into the URC vision.
We think that any proposed masterplan should carefully consider a strategy for the river front,
access to it and any position of the new bridge links.
We support the mix of uses proposed. However, nothing that we have seen convinces us that this
level of development is appropriate for this site. We acknowledge that this site is complex due to
change in levels. We have a number of additional concerns about this project and believe the
following items need to be addressed:
We can see no reason for the rationale behind the proposed orientation of the finger
blocks; the angular constraint causes planning problems and does not resolve any other
issues. The plans indicate a number of awkward unresolved corners, this is especially
apparent within the car park areas.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
We note there is 20m between the finger blocks; whilst this may exceed the minimum
recommendations , we feel that the combined impact of the massing, orientation and the
number of units could make the blocks feel unacceptably close.
We think that the impact of the tall developments on adjacent sites should be carefully
considered, especially in terms of the relationship between the two schemes on either side
of the shared site boundary. We wonder whether it is worth considering moving the river
crossing to between the two sites in light of this issue? We think that there should be
greater emphasis placed on the assessment of long term views of the development,
especially those from across the river.
The relationship of the buildings to the river needs to be addressed, especially in terms of
its impact on the proposed riverside walk. Currently the route passes under the building,
which we doubt will be pleasant. We would like to see a clear route linking adjacent sites.
For this quantity of accommodation, we think that there is not enough private or public
realm; quality external space needs to be created.
We welcome the provision of active street frontage to Adelphi Street, however, the
frontages are compromised by the proposed slot for car parking ventilation. This has a
negative impact on the street treatment and is not ideal, especially where the frontage
accommodates a residential apartment. Additionally, we think that the proposed gaps
between the units frontage to provide visual links to the river are too narrow; larger and
fewer gaps would be far more effective.
At present there are no clear entry sequences to the residential accommodation from the
street frontage, and access routes are convoluted, especially to the riverside apartments.
This will be difficult for both residents and visitors; sole access from the car park is
unacceptable.
The majority of flats are single aspect and unfortunately north facing. We find that the
plans lack imagination and were perturbed to find a bedroom with no windows in one flat.
We would strongly recommend the provision of natural light to the unlit central corridors.
We think that if balconies are used to provide amenity space, they should be large enough
to take a table and four chairs.
In conclusion, we would recommend a fundamental rethink is required to address our concerns.
Salford City Council and the URC should prioritise establishing a robust development framework
to ensure that development proposals coming forward will collectively deliver a sustainable, high
quality place that builds on its character and assets
Ramblers’ Association – Given the attractive provisions envisaged for pedestrians, especially the
riverside walkway, we support this imaginative proposal.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Salford University
Adelphi public house
REPRESENTATIONS
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:The proposal conflicts with policy H1 in that it does not contribute to the mix of dwellings
in the area and leads to an oversupply of flats
Overdevelopment
Construction work will be disruptive
There is insufficient car parking
The scheme is contrary to policy
The tower would be out of character
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific: MX1 – Development in Mixed-Use Areas
Other policies: ST7 Mixed Use Development, ST11 Location of New Development, DES1
Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES3 Design of Public Space, DES4
Relationship of Development to Public Space, DES5 Tall Buildings, DES6 Waterside
Development, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES10 Design and Crime, H1 Supply of
Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development, A1 Transport
Assessments and Travel Plans, A8 Impact on the Highway Network, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle
and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, DEV6 Incremental Development, EN5 Irwell
Valley, EN9 Wildlife Corridors, EN19 Flood Risk and Surface Water, EN22 Resource
Conservation, R5 Countryside and Access Network
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Regional Development Principles, MCR2 Regional centre and Inner Areas of Manchester
City Region, MCR4 Northern Part of the Manchester City Region
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the development is
acceptable, whether the mix of uses is acceptable, whether the scale, massing and design of the
development is of sufficiently high quality in this important part of the city, whether the highway
situation is adequate and whether the bridge is properly located, whether there is sufficient parking
and open space provision and whether the proposed materials are acceptable.
Principle of the Development
Policy H1 requires that an adequate supply of housing be brought forward with higher densities
being required at accessible locations such as this site. Policy H1 also requires development to
contribute toward a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure
and affordability.
Policy ST11 seeks to ensure that new development is located on the most sustainable sites within
the City and that less sustainable sites are only brought forward when necessary. The policy is
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
based on the sequential approaches to development that are set out in national policy guidance and
policy DP1 of Regional Planning Guidance for the North-West
Policy MX1/1 states that the intention of the Council is to develop this area of the City as a vibrant
mixed-use area with a broad range of uses and activities. Appropriate uses include housing, offices
and retail uses. In determining whether a proposed mix of uses is appropriate, regard will be had to
a number of factors, including the positive impact of the development on the regeneration of the
wider area, the use on adjoining sites and the extent to which the proposed development would
support the objective of maintaining a mix and balance of uses throughout the mixed-use area, the
prominence of the location and the existing and previous use of the site. Paragraph 2 of the
reasoned justification to policy MX1 states that:In particular the policy will be used to ensure that residential development does not unduly
predominate, to the detriment of the vitality and sustainability of the area. On larger sites,
single use residential developments are unlikely to be acceptable, and a significant
proportion of non-residential uses will normally be required.
The URC’s published draft Vision and Regeneration Framework identifies this site and the
immediate surrounding area as a key riverfront urban and neighbourhood node comprising public
realm and open space. The Framework sets the stage for ensuring the highest quality of urban and
architectural excellence. The main proposals of the Framework include:i) that the River Irwell corridor must become a primary open space system defined by world class
urban projects and parks. The Oldfield Road, Adelphi Street, Silk Street axis will become a
primary north/south boulevard linking Salford Quays, Ordsall, Chapel Street, Middlewood, the
Bolton-Bury Canal, the River Irwell and the Lower Broughton renewal area.
ii) the Meadows will be the green heart of Chapel Street – a boulevard will become a beautiful
terrace, overlooking a high quality, landscaped, public space by the riverside within walking
distances of the centre of Salford and Manchester’s commercial district.
iii) historic buildings will be reclaimed and renewed and high quality new buildings and spaces
created to form a new heart in the old city.
The City Council’s Adelphi Development Framework states that the regeneration of the Adelphi
Street area should result in a vibrant mixed-use area where University functions are complemented
by residential development and other commercial, leisure and retail uses. It should be characterised
by the best modern architecture, high quality public spaces and a distinctive waterside frontage. It
should be an area where there is on-street activity and pedestrian movement.
It also states that development of the area should provide a mix of uses: residential, retail,
commercial, leisure and educational uses. Sites that are currently occupied by, or were previously
used for, employment uses must provide appropriate replacement floorspace. Single use residential
schemes are unlikely to be acceptable and should include a significant proportion of non-residential
uses. Active uses should be located at ground floor level on Adelphi Street and to public open
spaces. Active frontages should be provided on the riverside walkway.
The document also states that within the residential provision of mixed-use schemes, 10% of units
should comprise 3 bedroom apartments, no more than 15% of apartments should be studios and at
least 50% of units should be more than 57sq.m in size.
The Framework states that new development should be of high density to reflect the location of the
site within the regional centre and states that new development should provide:
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
building heights of no more than five storeys along Adelphi Street, decreasing to two-three
storeys adjoining the Trinity area where lower height buildings predominate.
Taller buildings are encouraged behind the Adelphi Street elevation, at gateway sites and to
public spaces providing they are well designed.
Variety in massing (and other visual treatment) to ensure that large developments appear as
a series of individual buildings.
The site is previously developed in an accessible location close the A6 main bus route and within
acceptable walking distance of the Regional Centre. The principle of the redevelopment of the site
is therefore acceptable and in accordance with national government guidance and outline planning
permission has already been given for the residential development of this site. The application
proposes a development of one, two and three bed apartments and proposes a size of apartment in
excess of the standards set out in the draft supplementary planning document on housing. The
wider surrounding area is characterised by predominantly family housing. I consider that in this
location close to the regional centre, the level of provision is appropriate and in accordance with
policy H1.
The Adelphi Street area includes a number of key sites for which the City Council and the Central
Salford URC are keen to promote a design-led approach to regeneration. The future of this area is
to be looked at in conjunction with the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy and the URC’s Vision
for Central Salford. The site lies within a very important area for the City and it is important that
the area is developed in a comprehensive manner that is planned and coordinated to maximise the
benefits of each site. The City Council’s Adelphi Vision for Development has been adopted by the
City Council and, although not a supplementary planning document, weight should be attached to
it. It is important that no individual development should compromise the successful
implementation of the comprehensive redevelopment of this important part of the City.
An analysis of the floor space given over to individual uses in the development shows that
approximately 12% of the gross floorspace in the proposed scheme is given over to non-residential
uses. This represents an increase over the previous scheme which provided just 8% non-residential
uses and it is considered that this does represent a satisfactory mix of uses in accordance with policy
MX1 and the Adelphi Development Framework
Design, Scale and Massing
Policy DES1 states that developments will be required to respond to their physical context, respect
the positive character of the local area and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness via
a number of factors that include the scale and size of the building, its contribution in the street scene
and the quality of the proposed materials.
Policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public space,
that public space must be designed to:
i) have a clear role and purpose, responding to established or proposed local economic, social,
cultural and environmental needs;
ii) reflect and enhance the character and identity of the area;
iii) form an integral part of, and provide an appropriate setting for, surrounding developments;
iv) be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit;
v) be of an appropriate scale;
vi) connect to established pedestrian routes and other public spaces; and
vii) minimise, and make provision for, maintenance requirements.
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Policy DES5 states that tall buildings will be permitted where they meet a number of criteria.
Those criteria include that the scale of the development is appropriate to its context and location;
that the location is highly accessible to public transport, walking and cycling; that the building
would relate positively to and interact well with the adjacent public realm; that the building would
be of the highest quality design; that the building would make a positive addition to the skyline and
would not detract from important views and that there would be no unacceptable impact on the
setting of a listed building or on the character or appearance of a conservation area. The reasoned
justification for the policy goes on to state that tall buildings are more likely to be appropriate
within the mixed-use areas identified in policy MX1.
Policy DES6 states that all new development adjacent to the River Irwell will be required to
facilitate pedestrian access to, along and, where appropriate, across the waterway by the provision
of:
A safe, attractive and overlooked waterside walkway, accessible to all and at all times of
the day, where this is compatible with the commercial role of the waterway;
o Pedestrian access links between the waterside walkway and other key pedestrian routes;
and
o Where appropriate, ground floor uses that generate pedestrian activity, and larger waterside
spaces to act as focal points for public activity
It also states that development will be required to, where possible, protect, improve or provide
wildlife habitats. In addition it states that all built development along the waterway will be required
to
face onto the water and incorporate entrances onto the waterfront where appropriate;
be of the highest standard of design, creating a positive addition to the waterside
environment and providing an attractive elevation to it;
be of a scale sufficient to frame the edge of the waterside; and
enhance views from, of, across and along the waterway, and provide visual links to the
waterside from surrounding areas.
The proposed tower would, along with a similar tower on the adjacent development site, form a
gateway on either side of the new road and bridge. It is considered that two buildings of this
proposed height are required to frame the gateway and provide a landmark beacon that announces
entry into this part of the city. In addition I would point out that the Meadows covers a huge area,
approximately 4.8 hectares. The distance from the Maxwell building to this proposed tower is
approximately 350m. It is considered that within this context two towers of this proposed height
would be appropriate and necessary and in conformity with the Adelphi Development Framework.
The proposed materials that are used are of high quality. The use of traditional red brick on the
Adelphi Street frontage ties the development to its surroundings. Stabilised copper is a high quality
natural material that will coordinate with the natural cedar timbering and the glazing to produce a
development is of the highest quality in its choice of materials.
The architects for the scheme have sought to achieve a high quality of design and have made
considerable amendments to the scheme both to the previous scheme that is the subject to appeal
and the submitted scheme. It is consider that a high quality design has been achieved and that this
development is of a high quality in accordance with both the development plan and the Adelphi
Development Framework.
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Impact on the adjacent Conservation Area
The site adjoins the Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area on its southern boundary. The site
beyond is another vacant development site though, as is the site to the south east across Adelphi
Street. The cluster of listed buildings around St Philips Church are some distance from the site.
The proposed tower would be located on that part of the site furthest from the Conservation Area
and the height of development along Adelphi Street has deliberately been kept to four storeys on
the street frontage to maintain the urban grain of the area. I do not therefore consider that the
proposed development has any detrimental effect on the Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation
Area.
Effects of the development on neighbours
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
I have received one objection regarding the impact of the proposed development. The nearest
existing residential property is some 90m from the closest part of the site. I do not therefore
consider that there would be any significant detrimental effect on the amenity of existing
neighbours.
With regard to future development on the adjacent site to the north the architects for both schemes
have worked together to ensure that both schemes are compatible. Interface distances between the
two developments are such that habitable windows would not face each other directly and would be
at least 20m away from each other. I consider this likely future relationship to be acceptable.
In conclusion, I consider that the benefits of the scheme, namely the provision of a high quality
building which would make a positive contribution to the surrounding area, and the redevelopment
of a derelict, underutilised and vacant site outweighs any concerns relating to potential detrimental
effect on future residential amenity. I therefore have no objections to the application in respect of
residential amenity.
Highways, Parking and Public Transport
Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks maximum parking standards for all
developments. Within the emerging planning framework and in line with central government
advice there is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.
In July 2006 the Lead Member for Planning considered a report on the location of the proposed
road bridge across the river Irwell from Adelphi Street.
The City Council has been minded for some years to secure the provision of a road bridge over the
river to connect the Meadows and Spike Island with Adelphi Street thereby providing a route from
the communities in Lower Broughton to the rest of Salford. The new bridge is one of the
accessibility improvements identified in the Lower Broughton design Code Supplementary
Planning Document and an indicative siting is shown within a broad area of land in the vicinity of
the junction of Peru Street and Adelphi Street.
The report to Lead Member set out the two main options for the position of the bridge.
1. Within the site owned by this applicant (as shown on the previous application)
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
2. Between the two development sites (as shown on this application)
The preferred position expressed in the report was the second option and it was this option that was
preferred by the Lead Member.
The traffic impact assessment submitted by the applicant shows that the proposed development
would not have a material impact on the local highway network.
There are 402 spaces provided within the development that represents just under 100% of the
apartments having a space. It is likely that people buying the apartments are doing so because of
their proximity to Chapel Street and the regional centre. These people may well not own, or have
need for a car. In addition there are now shared ownership schemes being set up within the regional
centre and it is anticipated in the near future that residents of apartments such as this will be able to
access cars as and when they are needed thereby further reducing the need for households to have
their own vehicle that is exclusively for their use alone.
I have received objections to the level of parking proposed that there is insufficient parking
provided for the proposed development. The GMPTE though has concerns at the relatively high
level of parking. The parking levels are in accordance with policy in this accessible location and I
consider the parking levels proposed to be acceptable and would consider a greater level of
provision to be contrary to both good practice, government advice and planning policy. In terms of
highway safety I have no objections to the submitted scheme.
Crime and the Comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Unit
Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage
crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime, and support personal and property security. In
particular, development should:
i) clearly delineate public, communal, semi-private and private spaces, avoiding ill-defined or left
over spaces;
ii) allow natural surveillance, particularly of surrounding public spaces, means of access, and
parking areas;
iii) avoid places of concealment and inadequately lit areas; and
iv) encourage activity within public areas.
The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Unit object to the proposed development on a number
of grounds and I will address each in turn. With regard to congestion at the Crescent / Adelphi
Street junction I am satisfied that the proposed developments do not exceed the capacity of the
junction and I have no objections on highway grounds to the proposal. In addition the long term
aspirations of the URC to reduce traffic on Crescent should be taken into account and it is therefore
likely that in the long term the amount of traffic on Crescent and Chapel Street will reduce. With
regard to the pedestrian access points off Adelphi Street I am informed by the applicant that these
would be controlled and I have attached a condition relating to overall security of the site. With
regard to public access to the riverside walkway this is a fundamental aim of the scheme and
accords with general policy of the both the City Council and the URC which is to encourage such
access. I am satisfied that the wider public benefits of encouraging use of the riverside walkway
outweigh the concerns of the Unit in this instance and consider that the proposed condition will
ensure that the concerns expressed by the Unit are addressed.
Flood Risk
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Policy EN19 states that development will not be permitted where it would be subject to an
unacceptable risk of flooding or would materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
Although the site is adjacent to the River Irwell, Adelphi Street at this point is not within the flood
plain. The scheme has been designed with the advice of the Environment Agency who now have
no objections to the scheme.
Wildlife
Policy EN9 states that development that would affect any land that functions as a wildlife corridor,
or that provides an important link or stepping stone between habitats, will not be permitted where it
would unacceptably impair the movement of flora and fauna.
I have attached a condition to secure the enhancement of the value of the site to flora and fauna.
Open Space Provision
In accordance with policy H8 of the UDP and the draft SPD on planning obligations open space and
children’s play space can be accommodated off site through a financial contribution. This
application proposes 1057 bed spaces, which equates to a commuted sum value of £570,780. In
addition, in accordance with the Chapel Street SPG, a contribution of £1000 per apartment would
be generated by the development for environmental improvements. It is envisaged that this sum
would be spent on environmental improvements to the surrounding area including public art on the
river frontage, improvements to Adelphi Street, improvements to the public realm and
improvements to the public transport infrastructure.
Other Objections Raised
i) That there is an oversupply of flats in the area and that the scheme amounts to overdevelopment.
This is a location close to the regional centre where higher dwelling densities should be
encouraged and where it is right to provide apartments. The scheme contributes to the mix
of dwellings in this particular area and the siting and height of the building are considered
to be entirely appropriate. This has produced a scheme that is of high density but it is
considered that this is appropriate. There has been a significant reduction in the number of
apartments from the scheme that is now the subject of the appeal against
non-determination.
ii) That construction work will be disruptive
A degree of noise and disturbance is inevitable with any major building project. The
amenity of neighbours during this temporary period is protected by environmental
legislation. In addition a ‘considerate constructor’ condition is attached.
iii) That the tower will be out of character
It is considered that the Meadows is a potentially huge area of public open space that needs
to be framed in part by tall buildings. The two towers on either side of the new road bridge
will appropriately gate and mark this new river crossing and will serve as beacons in the
wider area.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
The architects have worked over a considerable period with officers to secure a development that is
of the highest quality and which accords with both the development plan and the Adelphi
Development Framework.
The scheme will generate benefits including environmental
improvements and a contribution towards open space to the value of £1,012,780.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the development is
acceptable, whether the mix of uses is acceptable, whether the scale, massing and design of the
development is of sufficiently high quality in this important part of the city, whether the highway
situation is adequate and whether the bridge is properly located, whether there is sufficient parking
and open space provision and whether the proposed materials are acceptable. The architects for the
scheme have worked successfully to revise and improve the scheme and I am satisfied that the
proposed development, now that it has been reduced in size, is acceptable and accords with the
policies of the development plan and the Adelphi Development Framework.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below once the
legal agreement has been signed:
that the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be authorised to enter into
legal agreements under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and
Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to secure the payment of a contribution to the
implementation of environmental improvements and open space in the local area to the
value of £1,012,780 and highway improvements respectively, and to secure the satisfactory
provision of the bridge abutments within the site;
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning
permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject
to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal
agreement.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development or demolition shall take place until the applicant has secured the
implementation of a programme of Archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme
of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such development and demolition as is approved shall only take place in
accordance with the approved programme of archaeological works.
3. Prior to the commencement of development, the developer shall undertake an assessment to
determine the external noise levels from surrounding roads and all other noise sources that the
proposed residential elements will be subjected to (day time and night time). The developer
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
shall detail what steps have to be taken to mitigate the disturbance from the above. The
assessment shall have due regard to planning Policy Guidance Note 24 - Planning and Noise
and achieving BS8233:1999 in all habitable rooms. This assessment and the mitigation
measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior
to the commencement of development. Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall
be implemented and thereafter retained at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
4. Any fume extraction system shall be designed so that there are no detectable odours at the
nearest residential properties.
5. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 18 months of the commencement of development and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the external elevations and roofs of the development shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the
approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
7. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
8. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the Local
Planning Authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation
to provision of street sweeping, permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials
and delivery and collection of equipment and the provision and use of on-site parking for
contractors' and workpeople's vehicles and no development or activities related or incidental
thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
9. Standard Condition M08 Site Investigation - new
10. The building and/or any externally mounted plant and equipment shall be insulated in
accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority before any such retail or commercial unit requiring such plant or equipment is first
brought into use. Any insulation required by the scheme shall be completed before such
premises are brought into use and shall be retained at all times thereafter. The level of
insulation to be provided and/or noise permitted from fixed plant and equipment shall be such
that the rated level of noise emitted (LAeq,t) is below the existing background level (LA90,t)
by at least 5dB(A) at the nearest noise sensitive properties.
11. Prior to the commencement of development an air quality assessment shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the datasets and methodologies for which
shall have been agreed with Salford City Council Environmental Protection Service before
undertaking the assessment. The assessment shall predict the effect of the development on air
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
quality and risk of exposure against the air quality objectives set out in the National Air Quality
Strategy (Air Quality regulations 2000) for the following pollutants; NOx and PM10. Details
of measures to be put in place or actions taken to reduce the impact of the development on air
quality shall be included in the assessment. A dispersion model capable of taking into adequate
account all relevant emissions sources within salford including point, line and area sources
should be used for this assessment. The air quality assessment should address the opening year
of the development and years 2010 and 2020 with and without the development. Pollutant
concentrations should be estimated at locations where the Air Quality Strategy objectives
apply. These are locations where members of the public will be exposed to the pollution over
the appropriate timescales of the objective. The report detailing the results of the air quality
assessment should provide a transparent account of the modelling undertaken, assumptions
made and validation of results.
12. Prior to the commencement of development a travel plan shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such travel plan shall include objectives and targets,
and, where appropriate, measures to promote and facilitate public transport use, measures to
reduce car use and its management, measures to promote and facilitate cycling and walking,
promotion of practices and facilities to reduce the need for travel, monitoring and review
mechanisms, travel plan coordination, and provision of travel information and marketing. The
initiatives and measures contained within the approved travel plan shall be implemented prior
to the first occupation of any dwelling unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
13. Within 12 months of the commencement of the development a lighting scheme for the building
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved
scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any dwelling and retained
thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
14. The development shall not be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing all the following
matters including; sustainable construction techniques; natural ventilation techniques;
sustainable urban drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar heat gain and use of renewable
energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability matters have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first occupation of any
dwelling the approved scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be retained and maintained
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
15. Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, no development shall commence
until details of a scheme to protect and enhance the habitat value of the site for flora and fauna
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme
as is approved shall be implemented in full within six months of the first occupation of the
development or commensurate with the provision of the landscaping, whichever is the later.
16. Any hot food premises brought into use shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 8am and
midnight on any day.
17. The development shall not be commenced unless and until a secure by design scheme has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall be
capable of being accredited by Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit under the
secure by design scheme. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the first
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
occupation of any dwelling in that phase unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
18. A scheme for the provision of recycling facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the
occupation of any dwelling and shall be maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To make a record of the archaeological remains for archive and research purposes in
accordance with policy CH5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
6. Standard Reason R008B Development-Building in vicinity
7. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage
8. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
9. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
10. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
11. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
12. To reduce car travel and increase accessibility by public transport, walking and cycling in
accordance with policy A1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
13. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
14. In order to address recycling and sustainability issues in accordance with policy EN22 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
15. To enhance the value of the riverside environment for flora and fauna in accordance with
policy EN9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
16. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
17. To ensure the design of the scheme discourages crime in accordance with Policy DES10 of the
City of Salford Revised Unitary Development Plan.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
18. In accordance with policy EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the need to intercept surface water draining from the
development prior to its entering the highway across a footway, to meet the requirements of
Section 103 of the Highways Act 1980.
3. Please note that a separate system of drainage is required for this development.
4. 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.
APPLICATION No:
06/53270/FUL
APPLICANT:
Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust And Consortium
Healthcare
LOCATION:
Stott Lane Car Park Stott Lane Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of temporary deck to existing surface car park to
provide additional 445 spaces for a period of two years
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the existing temporary car park on the Stott Lane playing fields.
This report should be read in conjunction with the report on main redevelopment of the hospital site
that also appears on this agenda.
In 2002, a ten year project was launched by the applicant for the redevelopment of Hope Hospital.
The centre piece of the strategy for the delivery of healthcare in Salford is known as Salford’s
Health Investment For Tomorrow (SHIFT), which will change the health services that Salford
provides over the next six years. The programme is divided into five projects:
redevelopment and modernisation of Hope Hospital
construction of six new Health and Social Care (LIFT) centres across the city
redesign of health services to provide integrated patient care
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
implementing NHS Connecting for Health in Salford
an integrated NHS workforce in Salford
Together these projects are intended to deliver new health facilities and modernised services to the
benefit of patients, staff and the people of Salford.
This application represents just one small component of the SHIFT project that aims to deliver a
step change in the provision of healthcare for the people of Salford. The proposed deck would
provide the parking needed while existing car parking within the hospital site is taken up by
development sites and construction compounds.
The emphasis of the SHIFT programme is to concentrate on the provision of healthcare services
away from the Hope Hospital site wherever appropriate and safe.
It is proposed to provide this temporary deck for a period of two years. The permission for the
temporary surface car park on the Stott Lane playing fields expires at the end of March 2010.
The deck is a 3.5m high metal structure that would provide an additional level of parking above the
existing surface car park. The structure can be erected in a three week period and would provide an
additional 445 spaces on Stott Lane. This would replace spaces lost through the construction of the
main visitor car park at the rear of the hospital site.
The construction of the new deck will take place prior to the commencement of the PFI scheme for
the redevelopment of the main hospital buildings. The ground floor of the car park will be for
visitors and will operate 24 hours a day. The first floor will be for staff and will operate from 8am
to 6pm only.
The reserved matters application sets out the proposed phasing of the redevelopment of the hospital
and the additional car parking provided by the deck would be required throughout the construction
process.
SITE HISTORY
In September 1999 planning permission was granted for the temporary use of the Stott Lane
playing fields for a 500 space car park (99/39088/FUL)
In December 2004 planning permission was granted for the retention of the land for car parking
until 31 March 2010 (04/48567/FUL).
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 137 and 2 to 104 Meadowgate Road
14 Tootal Grove
1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 14 and 20 Brookfield Avenue
1 to 18 Ryecroft Avenue
1 to 11 and flats 1 to 14 Meadow Court, Stott Lane
8 Park Road
4 Belmont Avenue
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
1 to 9 and 19 to 39 Bradfield Avenue
Flats 1 to 18 Elysian Fields
262 Eccles Old Road
These are all those notified of the previous planning applications on the playing fields and includes
those who objected previously.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no representations in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific: EHC6 Hope Hospital
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES7 Amenity of
Users and Neighbours, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the design, scale and massing of
the temporary deck is appropriate, the impact of the development on neighbours, whether there is
sufficient parking.
Policy EHC6 states that the modernisation and expansion of health care facilities at Hope Hospital
will be permitted provided that:
all development proposals form part of a co-ordinated programme set out within an
approved masterplan;
transport issues are addressed in a co-ordinated manner, particularly through the
development of a travel plan, improved public transport, and provision for cycling,
pedestrians, car parking and access/egress;
neighbouring uses, particularly residential, would not suffer any unacceptable
reduction in amenity or safety, for example through the impact of traffic or car
parking associated with the hospital;
the long term recreational use of Stott Lane playing fields is protected; and
development is of a high quality of design consistent with the policies of the
Design chapter.
Design, Scale and Massing
Policy DES1 states that developments will be required to respond to their physical context, respect
the positive character of the local area and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness via
a number of factors that include the scale and size of the building, its contribution to townscape
quality and the impact on views and vistas.
Effects of the development on neighbours
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers
or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
The existing surface car park is 55m from the nearest habitable room windows in dwellings on
Meadowgate Road and 46m from the gardens to those properties. The proposed deck is set in from
the boundary by a further 9m.
In terms of privacy and overlooking I consider the separation distances of 44m between the deck
and properties on Meadowgate Road to be sufficient. The deck would be set back from Stott Lane
by a minimum of 35m and I consider that this relationship to the road would be in character with
other buildings on this main road. I do not therefore consider that there will be any significant loss
of privacy or an unacceptable outlook suffered by residents surrounding the site. I do not consider
that the heights of any of the building are such that they would prove overdominant when viewed
from any neighbouring property or any public highway given the distances and circumstances
described above.
In conclusion, I therefore have no objections to the application in respect of residential amenity.
Highways, Parking and Circulation
Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks maximum parking standards for all
developments. Within the emerging planning framework and in line with central government
advice there is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.
The redevelopment of the hospital requires the provision of a new multi-storey car park.
Construction of the car park on the existing main visitor car park will mean that spaces on the
existing visitor car park adjacent to the hospital will be lost while construction of the new
multi-storey car park takes place. There is a clear need for this temporary car parking which will
allow visitors to park within a short distance of the main hospital buildings.
In terms of highway safety I have no objections to the submitted scheme.
CONCLUSION
There is a need for temporary car parking for the hospital during the construction of the new
multi-storey car park. The proposed deck is just 3.5m high and is set some distance from the
nearest residential properties. I am satisfied that there is no significant detrimental effect on any
neighbouring property, the street scene or on any interest of acknowledged importance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The building hereby permitted shall be removed on or before the expiration of a period ending
on 31st December 2008 when the site shall be restored to its condition immediately prior to the
commencement of development, unless a further permission is granted by the Local Planning
Authority.
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R037B Additional measure of control
APPLICATION No:
06/53290/REM
APPLICANT:
Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust And Consort Healthcare
LOCATION:
Hope Hospital Stott Lane Salford M6 8HD
PROPOSAL:
Reserved matters application for the demolition of existing
buildings and the development of a new main hospital building,
education block, ancillary buildings and extensions,
multi-storey car park, surface car parking (including 5 spaces
for the Hope village shops) and public realm works
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the whole of the existing Hope Hospital site that covers an area of
approximately 15 hectares. It is bounded by Stott Lane to the east, the M602 to the south,
Devonshire Road and residential properties to the west and Eccles Old Road to the north. It
specifically excludes the Stott Lane playing fields. The hospital sits within a predominantly
suburban residential area although there is a mix of uses on Eccles Old Road that includes a church,
library and public house as well as a small local shopping centre. Surrounding development is of
relatively low density. The Eccles Old Road corridor is characterised by mature tree planting with
properties set well back from the pavement.
This report should be read in conjunction with the report on the proposed temporary deck on the
existing car park on the Stott Lane playing fields
In 2002, a ten year project was launched by the applicant for the redevelopment of Hope Hospital.
The centre piece of the strategy for the delivery of healthcare in Salford is known as Salford’s
Health Investment For Tomorrow (SHIFT), which will change the health services that Salford
provides over the next six years. The programme is divided into five projects:
redevelopment and modernisation of Hope Hospital
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
construction of six new Health and Social Care (LIFT) centres across the city
redesign of health services to provide integrated patient care
implementing NHS Connecting for Health in Salford
an integrated NHS workforce in Salford
Together these projects are intended to deliver new health facilities and modernised services to the
benefit of patients, staff and the people of Salford.
This application represents just one component of the SHIFT project that aims to deliver a step
change in the provision of healthcare for the people of Salford. The hospital component of the
project consists of four key elements:a PFI redevelopment of the centre of the hospital site
the associated demolitions and enabling works
the refurbishment and adaption of retained buildings
landscaping, car parking and traffic improvement work on the site and adjacent
highways
The emphasis of the SHIFT programme is to concentrate on the provision of healthcare services
away from the Hope Hospital site wherever appropriate and safe.
The redevelopment of the hospital has been informed by the documents submitted with the original
outline application and the Trust’s advisors. The development of the detailed design has been
informed by key features of the existing site. Some of the important features include the
following:the lack of an identifiable front door to the hospital
the domination of the site by buildings and car parking
the extremely limited tree and general landscape cover other than at the boundaries
the absence of any clear structure of open spaces and open routes through the hospital
the absence of any attractive and enjoyable open spaces within the site
the wide variation in ages, style, height and materials of the buildings and their general
limited or poor architectural quality
the confused and confusing access and circulation pattern
the quality of views from the site particularly across the relatively green suburbs to the
north, north east and east
the intrusion of traffic noise from the M602
At an early stage in the design process the Trust identified a number of key objectives as follows:recover lost clarity
provide a presence to the local community with a 21st century medical service face to
Eccles Old Road
a clear front door and main visitor and patient entry from Eccles old Road
clear separation of accesses and routes
clear and convenient relationship between front door, public transport routes and the
existing shops on Eccles Old Road
a sensitive relationship to existing neighbours
better natural routes and increased footfall to local shops to support retention and
improvement of local services
exploitation of existing views
shielding of the patient environment from motorway noise
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
There are also clear clinical and other hospital operational requirements that the development
proposals have had to satisfy and these have been key factors in shaping the location, form and
phasing of the development across the site.
A significant outcome of the design analysis is the need to bring or clearly link as many of the high
volume patient and public visitor activities to the most publicly accessible part of the site – the
north of the site closest to Eccles Old Road. Major development is proposed to front Eccles Old
Road and a multi storey car park is proposed to the M602 boundary. Visitor and patient access
would be located at a new main access off Eccles Old Road. Emergency vehicle access would
remain in its existing position towards the north end of Stott Lane with staff access being located at
the existing access point on Stott Lane opposite the access to the temporary car park on Stott Lane
playing fields.
The precise details of the new entrance junction on Eccles Old Road have been subject to much
discussion and these are described in more detail below.
In terms of circulation within the site the majority of staff would enter and exit on Stott Lane
opposite the entrance to the temporary car park on the playing fields and would use the multi storey
car park via a dedicated staff access. Patients and visitors would enter and exit on Eccles Old Road.
There would be a large drop off area adjacent to the main access into the hospital beyond which
would be a surface car park with 35 disabled spaces and 105 standard parking spaces. Beyond this
would be another separate surface car park that is also identified as a site for future development.
The main access road would then lead visitors and patients into a final surface car park adjacent to
the M602 boundary or into the multi storey car park. Associated highway improvements are
described below.
The area of the proposed works comprises the central third of the site running from Eccles Old
Road through the heart of the site down to the M602 boundary. The main buildings that would be
demolished and replaced include the two towers – Webb House and Worthington House, the
postgraduate medical centre adjacent to the shops on the Eccles Old Road frontage, the mortuary,
the IT building, the sterile services building, the large Victorian wards in the centre of the site and
the Homestead buildings located to the north of the existing main surface car park.
The proposed development includes three main elements;
i) a major clinical services building comprising 29,321sq.m of floorspace on three main
floors(Block A). This block would contain 700sq.m of retail floorspace.
ii) an educational and support services building comprising 10,207sq.m of floorspace on four
floors (Block E)
iii) a multi storey car park providing 1,410 spaces on five storeys
A further 650sq.m of floorspace would be provided in other minor buildings. The application also
includes significant improvements to the highway network that were identified at outline
application stage:
Firstly there would be an additional lane at the top of Stott Lane for cars turning left
onto Eccles Old Road. This left turn lane is sited so that an existing mobile phone mast
remains in place and would now be located on a traffic island. The existing boundary
wall to the hospital would be replaced and tress on this boundary would also be
removed but replacements would be planted. There would also be a loss of residents
parking bays in the existing layby.
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
On Eccles Old Road a major new junction would be provided with a single access lane
into the site, two lanes exiting the site and a separate left and right turn lane on Eccles
Old Road into the site. On the Eccles Old Road frontage the existing hospital boundary
wall would be set back to allow a bus lane to be provided connecting the existing bus
lanes on either side of the hospital frontage. Facilities for pedestrians at both these
junctions would be improved as a result of the proposed highway works.
The application seeks the approval of the details of the junction layouts as described above. These
details have been the subject of much discussion between officers and the Trust and the details are
acceptable in highway terms.
However, an alternative proposal that involves some slight reconfiguration of the junction, a new
vehicular access/egress for Knowles Court, a loss of three parking bays in front of the shops
numbered 189 to 195 Eccles Old Road and the provision of five replacement parking bays for the
shops within the hospital site on the Eccles Old Road frontage, is being investigated. Residents and
shopkeepers have been notified of these plans but the residents of Knowles Court are currently
sceptical of the benefits of such a scheme and the shopkeepers object to the possible loss of parking
directly outside their premises.
Although these alternative proposals do represent a better solution in highway terms they involve
land outside the applicant’s control and any new access for Knowles Court would require a separate
planning permission. The junction arrangements described above are acceptable in highway terms.
Discussions will continue in the lead up to the Panel meeting and members will be updated on the
situation at the Panel meeting. I have attached an appropriate condition.
Block A
This would comprise the main new clinical services building and would provide the new main
entrance into the hospital complex. It would provide three levels of accommodation as well as
plant on the third floor. It would be set back from Eccles Old Road by 14m at its closest point. It
would provide a new main pedestrian entrance on the Eccles Old Road. To the rear of the building
there would be a large new drop off point and adjacent to this the new main entrance into the
hospital for visitors and day case patients. Accident and emergency access would remain from
Stott Lane on the eastern elevation of the new building. A central access spine would run
north/south through the centre of this building with the café, shops and pharmacy being located
along this central access route. The café would look out onto a new main landscaped area forming
the green heart to the site.
The design of the building has been developed as a response to the local surroundings, the new
organisation of the site and internal healthcare plans. From the outside, the curved shape (in fact a
series of 1.2m facets to the principal elevations) was derived to organise vehicular traffic flow
entering the site and lead it round the building to the main drop off point. From the inside, the
curved plan was developed as part of the ward design that maximises the external elevation for
daylight and views from the one bed rooms.
In terms of the buildings elevational treatment, the architect has attempted to give the building a
feeling of openness, light and air together with a modern and positive image of a major hospital.
The elevation breaks the building down into three layers that address the vertical scale – i) entry
level, ii) the first and second floors, iii) the roofscape including plant level. The entry level is a
series of vertical panels that are either coloured metal or glass. The rhythm is dictated by the
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
function of the space behind. On the west side of the building this level sits back from the elevation
above exposing the columns to form a colonnade. On the south east side, it extends beyond the
building to form the entrance to the emergency department. The elevation of the first and second
floors is terracotta, a traditional, vernacular material used in a contemporary way. The pattern of
tall and small windows reflects the single bedrooms behind. The roofspace consists of vertical
metal cladding with a horizontal profile with integral louvers set back from the edge of the building.
The roof oversails the plant level with edge support by off-set struts. The underside of the exposed
roof edge is a halo that unifies the building. The roofs slope back towards the central atrium,
highlighting the focus of the building.
The main entrance to the public atrium space from the drop off would be highlighted by a wedge
section of the building that extends to form a canopy. This wedge would be rendered and painted.
Beyond the main landscaped area and the drop off area would be a new surface visitor and disabled
parking area providing a total of 140 spaces as described above. Beyond this there would be a site
that would provide parking in the short term but which in the long term is identified as the site for a
possible new cancer centre. No decision has yet been reached at regional level about whether this
new cancer centre should best be located here at Hope Hospital or elsewhere within the region.
Block E
This building would be the education and facilities management building and therefore serves a
very different purpose to block A. The north elevation has a series of vertical panels that are either
coloured metal or glass, matching block A. The south elevation facing the multi storey car park
would be faced in horizontal metal bands that wrap round the east and west corners to abut the
vertical stair and lift towers. These vertical circulation areas, which mark the entrance to the
building, would be rendered and painted to match block A and to give a common language to mark
entrance points.
The multi storey car park
The multi storey car park would be highly visible from the M602 and the architects have sought to
achieve an appropriate high quality design. The building would be five storeys and would measure
96m by 48m. The elevations visible from the motorway have significant metal profiles at each
floor level. The elevations to the stair tower and facing north towards the centre of the site have hit
and miss horizontal metal cladding similar to that used on the adjacent education block.
This application seeks approval of all reserved matters relating to the previous outline permission.
This application is the most significant reserved matters application for the site but the Trust will be
making further reserved matters applications for non PFI projects.
The applicant has undertaken a significant amount of pre-application consultation with the local
community. This has included an information leaflet to around 4000 households around the
hospital, posters within the hospital itself and a public exhibition at the hospital and at Morrisons
supermarket in Eccles.
The applicant has shown how the redevelopment of the hospital would be phased and how car
parking would be provided to cater with this process. This would broadly be as follows:
Demolition of Homesteads
Multi storey car park completed
Block E completed
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Webb and Worthington Houses demolished
Block A completed
Victorian wards demolished
Surface car parks completed
In addition to these main elements of the project there are a number of smaller single storey
extensions within the main hospital site for which permission is sought. These extensions are small
in comparison to the main project elements described above and I am satisfied that they do not have
any detrimental effect on any neighbouring property or on any street scene or interest of
acknowledged importance.
Highway Alterations
As referred to above there are a number of alterations to the highways around the site as a result of
these proposals. The first outline application for the redevelopment of the hospital identified the
need for junction improvements at the Stott Lane / Eccles Old Road intersection and at the
proposed new access into the hospital on Eccles Old Road.
SITE HISTORY
There have been a considerable number of planning applications on the site but those relevant to
this application are the following.
Outline planning permission was granted in April 2000 for the progressive selective redevelopment
of the hospital (99/39299/OUT).
In December 2000 outline permission was granted again for progressive selective redevelopment
but with a modification to the condition regarding the timing of junction works (00/40937/OUT).
In September 2005 permission was granted to extend the life of the outline permission for two years
until September 2007 (05/50247/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – The application is for the PFI elements of the
major regeneration proposals for Hope Hospital which, once implemented, will improve the
healthcare facilities available to residents of Salford. The URC has no specific comments to make
on this application, other than that the URC is generally supportive of the application.
United Utilities – No objections in principle
Environment Agency – No objections in principle but requests that a number of conditions be
attached to any approval.
Claremont / Weaste Community Committee – Strongly objects to the development on the grounds
that the development will create additional traffic levels on Eccles Old Road and be detrimental to
highway safety due to the road being used as access and aggress for delivery vehicles and that
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
therefore the development would result in the loss of parking provision in the Hope village area and
increase overall congestion in the vicinity of the site.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No response received to date
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – Supports the proposals but requests a bus
stop within the site.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 137 and 2 to 104 Meadowgate
1 to 9 and 2 to 16 Osbourne Road
1 to 23, 8 to 20 and flats 1 to 18 Portland House and 1 to 18 Zyburn Court, Park
Road
1 to 18 Ryecroft Avenue
1 to 11 and flats 1 to 14 Meadow Court, Stott Lane
1 to 8 Timothy Close
1 to 31, 6 to 52, 1A, 3A, 5A and 15A Trafalgar Road
1 to 11 and 2 to 16 Vauban Drive
1 to 16 Verdun Avenue
1 to 21, 2 to 18, 1A and 4A Vestris Drive
1 to 8 Belmont Avenue
1 to 9 and 19 to 39 Bradfield Avenue
2 to 8, 16 to 36, 5 to 9, 27 to 45, 44 and 46 Devonshire Road
189 to 215, 219 to 225, 212, 214, 220 to 228, 254 and 264 Eccles Old Road
9 to 41 and 10 to 32 Victoria Road
1 to 22 and St James’ Church Vicarage Close
1 to 11, 2 to 10, 2A to 2D, 11A and 15 Wilton Road.
These are all those notified of the previous outline planning applications.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received nine representations in response to the planning application publicity:- one
objection and observations letter from Councillor Ainsworth, one letter of support from a local
resident, one letter of support and observations from Elmwood Church, one objection from the
managing agents of Knowles Court and three letters of objection from local residents and on behalf
of Middle Victoria Road Home Watch. The following issues have been raised:Cllr Ainsworth
The impact of the hospital access and the on-site parking proposals on an already
significantly gridlocked highway network
Impact on noise, air quality and light pollution
The absence of an integrated design proposal for the hospital and Hope village shops
The impact of the new retail facilities within the hospital on the Hope village shops
Uncertainty regarding the nursery resiting
The lack of respite/leisure facilities for the significant hospital workforce
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
The potential need for better future connectivity with areas of regeneration within the city
The absence of local economic impact targets or objectives
The impact of the new road junction on Eccles Old Road on parking in front of the shops
and on the bus lane
The pavement is narrowed to a minimum of 1.8m which is too narrow and which conflicts
with the URC stated objective of a ‘green boulevard’
There is not a need for a two lane exit from the hospital onto Eccles Old Road
The footpath link to the Hope village shops joins with an unmade and unkempt passage
adjacent to 189 Eccles Old Road.
Lack of detail about the generator sites that have appeared since the public consultation
especially the one proposed for the Stott Lane frontage opposite Meadow Court and the
associated detrimental impact on the frontage image and pedestrian environment
The Traffic Impact Assessment is inadequate
Impact of construction traffic
The cap of 1942 parking spaces on the site is to be exceeded
There is a lack of detail regarding the north/south connecting link running through the site
The projecting wall on the front elevation could be better designed
The concourse in front of the hospital should feature more hard landscaping, better street
furniture and sculpture
Resident of Verdun Avenue
Supports the application as the hospital desperately needs new wards, car parking and
accommodation
The development will raise the tone of the area and boost house prices
Knowles Court Managing Agents
Residents of Knowles Court already have great difficulty getting in and out of the
development and in particular the bus lane causes great difficulties
Elmwood Church
Fully supportive of the development
The church has experienced extreme difficulty with people trying to find somewhere to
park and as a church we feel bound to allow patients to park in our car park when it’s free –
visiting hospital is stressful enough without the hassle of parking.
If the Council does grant permission the church asks that the multi storey car park is
provided
Residents of Eccles Old Road and Middle Victoria Road
No objections to the buildings but do object to the proposed new junction on Eccles Old
Road.
The short right turn lane into the Hospital will cause serious traffic congestion
Get rid of the bus lanes which already make the road dangerous
Traffic flows are based on out of date information
The new set of lights will cause greater congestion
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings, DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific: EHC6 Hope Hospital
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES3 Design of
Public Space, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and
Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, DES10 Design and Crime, DES11 Design and Crime,
EN12 Important Landscape Features, EN22 Resource Conservation, S1 Retail and Leisure
Development Within Town and Neighbourhood Centres
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Regional Development Principles, MCR2 Regional centre and Inner Areas of Manchester
City Region, MCR4 Northern Part of the Manchester City Region
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the design, scale and massing of
the building is appropriate, the impact of the development on neighbours, whether there is
sufficient parking, whether sufficient open space provision has been made, whether the loss of trees
on the Eccles Old Road frontage is acceptable and whether the proposed materials are acceptable.
The principle of the development has already been established by the outline permissions.
Policy EHC6 states that the modernisation and expansion of health care facilities at Hope Hospital
will be permitted provided that:
all development proposals form part of a co-ordinated programme set out within an
approved masterplan;
transport issues are addressed in a co-ordinated manner, particularly through the
development of a travel plan, improved public transport, and provision for cycling,
pedestrians, car parking and access/egress;
neighbouring uses, particularly residential, would not suffer any unacceptable
reduction in amenity or safety, for example through the impact of traffic or car
parking associated with the hospital;
the long term recreational use of Stott Lane playing fields is protected; and
development is of a high quality of design consistent with the policies of the
Design chapter.
Design, Scale and Massing
Policy DES1 states that developments will be required to respond to their physical context, respect
the positive character of the local area and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness via
a number of factors that include the scale and size of the building, its contribution in the street scene
and the quality of the proposed materials.
Policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of public space, that public
space must be designed to, amongst other things; have a clear role and purpose; reflect and enhance
the character and identity of the area; provide an appropriate setting for surrounding developments;
be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit; be of an appropriate scale; connect to
established pedestrian routes and; minimise, and make provision for, maintenance requirements.
Policy DES5 states that tall buildings will be permitted where they meet a number of criteria.
Those criteria include that the scale of the development is appropriate to its context and location;
that the location is highly accessible to public transport, walking and cycling; that the building
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
would relate positively to and interact well with the adjacent public realm; that the building would
be of the highest quality design; that the building would make a positive addition to the skyline and
would not detract from important views and that there would be no unacceptable impact on the
setting of a listed building or on the character or appearance of a conservation area.
The architects for the scheme have sought to achieve a high quality of design and it is consider that
this has been achieved.
The main building, block A, is deliberately closer to the Eccles Old Road frontage than the existing
buildings. It is considered that this is appropriate as it matches the set back of the majority of the
buildings along Eccles Old Road while at the same time providing the strong visible presence
required of the new hospital. It also allows for new appropriate landscaping to be provided on this
main road frontage.
The proposed materials that are used are of high quality and are appropriate to the buildings and
their varied surroundings.
I consider that the proposed materials would provide a sympathetic contrast to the surrounding
older buildings and would maintain the quality of development in the area. I consider that the
proposed development accords with policies DES1, DES3 and DES5.
I have referred to policy DES5 as objections have been made to the height of the building on the
Eccles Old Road frontage. I consider that this new building is appropriate to its function, context
and location and consider that it responds well to its surroundings. The buildings are designed to a
high standard and use high quality materials. I consider that the proposed development accords
with policy DES5.
Effects of the development on neighbours
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers
or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
Ward councillors have stated that the local community is concerned about the impact of the
proposed development on traffic on Eccles Old Road. The application has been amended as a result
of officer concerns with regard to the adequacy of the detailed design of the Eccles Old Road
junction and the position and alignment of the junction has been adjusted so that the entrance to
Knowles Court lies outside of the new traffic light controlled junction and so that the right turn lane
into the hospital is of an adequate length. Such concerns must be considered against the benefits of
the scheme, namely the redevelopment of a Victorian hospital site and the proper reorganisation of
access into the site. The Trust has stated that the proposals do not in themselves lead to any
increase in traffic but it is certainly the case that there will be an increase in traffic on Eccles Old
Road as the primary entrance and exit for visitors would be located directly off this road. There are
though already a series of traffic light controlled junctions along Eccles Old Road and there are
already high levels of traffic on this road.
In terms of privacy and overlooking I consider the separation distance of 44m between the
proposed Block A building and the dwellings at Heron Court that face the site is sufficient. To the
south the proposed car park would be over 100m from dwellings on Eccles New Road that face the
site. I consider this separation distance to be sufficient. Block A is set back by a minimum of 14m
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
from the Eccles old Road frontage and I consider that this relationship to the road would be in
character with other buildings on this main road. I do not therefore consider that there will be any
significant loss of privacy or an unacceptable outlook suffered by residents surrounding the site. I
do not consider that the heights of any of the building are such that they would prove overdominant
when viewed from any neighbouring property or any public highway given the distances and
circumstances described above.
In conclusion, I consider that the provision of high quality major new hospital buildings which
would make a positive contribution to the street scene and the surrounding area and the removal of
Victorian wards that are no longer fit for purpose is to be welcomed and supported. I am satisfied
that there would be do significant detrimental effect on residential amenity as a result of this
proposal.
Highways, Parking and Circulation
Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks maximum parking standards for all
developments. Within the emerging planning framework and in line with central government
advice there is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.
The existing hospital is accessed by vehicles at four locations on Stott Lane and the existing
junction at Eccles Old Road is an exit only. A total of 1870 parking spaces are currently provided at
the hospital with 89 disabled spaces. There are 487 visitor spaces and 1294 for staff including the
spaces on Stott Lane playing fields. The traffic impact assessment submitted by the applicant
shows that the proposed development would not have a material impact on the local highway
network. Capacity assessments for both the Eccles Old Road entrance and the Stott Lane entrance
show that both junctions would operate well within capacity with minimal queuing and delay.
The Eccles Old Road/Stott Lane junction currently suffers from delays and queuing. These
problems may continue in the future but are improved as a result of the proposals.
I have received objections to the level of parking proposed that there is insufficient parking
provided for the proposed development. The parking levels are in accordance with policy in this
highly accessible location and I consider the parking levels proposed to be acceptable and would
consider a greater level of provision to be contrary to both good practice, government advice and
planning policy. In terms of highway safety I have no objections to the submitted scheme.
The applicant has stated that phasing proposals ensure the provision of 1942 car parking spaces for
the hospital throughout the redevelopment process.
Loss of Trees
None of the trees within the Hospital grounds are protected by tree preservation order. It is
acknowledged though that the trees that border the site, especially on its Stott Lane and Eccles Old
Road boundaries provide a significant contribution to the prevailing character of the area.
Policy EN12 states that development that would have a detrimental impact on, or result in the loss
of, any important landscape feature will not be permitted unless the applicant can clearly
demonstrate that either the importance of the development plainly outweighs the nature
conservation and amenity value of the landscape feature and the design and layout of the
development cannot reasonably make provision for the retention of the landscape feature.
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Currently the only trees on the site are found at the site boundaries. While it is regrettable that trees
on the Eccles Old Road frontage would be removed as a result of the junction improvements and
provision of the bus lane it is considered that the benefits of these highway improvements
outweighs the benefits to the street scene provided by the existing trees. In addition trees lost
would be replaced with new tree planting on the road frontage as well as this there would be
considerable and significant tree planting in the heart of the hospital site. I consider therefore that
the loss of existing trees on the Eccles Old Road frontage is not contrary to policy EN12.
Sustainability
Policy EN22 states that development proposals for more than 5,000sq.m of floorspace will only be
permitted where it can be demonstrated that:
a) the impact on the conservation of non-renewable resources, and on the local and global
environments, has been minimised as far as practicable; and
b) full consideration has been given to the use of realistic renewable energy options, and such
measures have been incorporated into the development where practicable.
The applicant has stated that the energy use, wider environmental and overall sustainability
performance of the hospital regeneration has formed an important element in the development of
the proposals. As part of the design evaluation process the environmental performance of the
proposals has been assessed using the NHS environmental assessment toolkit (NEAT). This
assessment of the current proposals gives them a ‘very good’ rating.
Security
Policy DES10 states that development will only be permitted where it is designed to discourage
crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime, and support personal and property security.
Crime prevention measures should not be at the expense of the overall design quality, and
proposals will not be permitted where they have a hostile appearance or engender a fortress-type
atmosphere.
Security is a significant issue in all healthcare developments. Hope Hospital has been conceived
throughout as an open site and the approach to security for the hospital complex has been designed
in this context. A full security audit of the site has been undertaken as part of the design process
based on ‘secured by design’ principles
Objections Raised
i) Impact on highway network
This issue has been addressed above and I confirm that I have no objections on highway
grounds to the proposals.
ii) Impact on noise, air quality and light pollution
the Strategic Director of Environmental Services has no objections to the proposals.
iii) Impact on local shops
The proposals have been amended as a result of concerns expressed about the loss of
parking spaces to the local shops. The proposals now do not affect the existing parking
spaces. There is a small increase in the size of the retail facilities within the hospital. I
consider that this is appropriate within any major hospital. In opening up direct pedestrian
linkages to the shops from the hospital I am of the opinion that local shops will benefit as a
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
result of these proposals. I do not consider that in bringing the hospital retail facilities
closer to Eccles Old Road that shoppers would be inclined to use the hospital shops rather
than the shops on Eccles Old Road.
iv) The absence of an integrated design proposal for the hospital and the Hope village shops.
Given that I consider that local shops will benefit from the proposals I do not consider that
the Trust should be required to anything further than it has already done in amending the
proposals to ensure that there is no loss of parking for the shops.
v) The nursery
There is no replacement nursery shown now in the current proposals.
vi) Lack of facilities for the workforce
I do not consider the issue of respite and leisure facilities for the hospital workforce to be a
material planning consideration.
vii) Better connectivity with areas of regeneration within the City
The improved healthcare that will result from this development would assist in the wider
regeneration objectives of the City Council
viii) The absence of local economic impact targets or objectives
I do not consider that the applicant could have been required to submit such information
with the application
ix) Minimum pavement widths and need for ‘green boulevard’
I consider that the provision of a bus lane outweighs the disadvantage of the loss of wide
pavements. The ‘green boulevard’ will be created by tree planting within the hospital
grounds.
x) No need for two lanes exiting the hospital on Eccles Old Road
This will have no impact whatsoever on the flow of traffic on Eccles Old Road and will
allow more visitor and patient movements at peak times and will reduce any queuing
within the site.
xi) The footpath link to the Hope village shops joins an unkempt passage
The Trust have stated their willingness to improve this passage.
xii) Lack of detail about generators
I have attached a condition requiring details of the generators to be approved before
construction takes place. I do not consider though that they would, in principle, have a
detrimental effect on the street scene or the pedestrian environment
xiii) The Traffic Impact assessment is inadequate
The TIA has been corrected and amended as a result of mistakes in the original submitted
document and concerns regarding the details of the new junction on Eccles Old Road.
xiv) Impact of construction traffic
Construction workers would park on the temporary decked car park on Stott Lane.
Construction vehicles will use the existing entrance on Stott Lane and then the new Eccles
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Old Road junction. Efforts will be made to minimise the removal of material off site
therefore minimising the amount of vehicular movement. It is though inevitable that with
any major construction there will be a degree of impact felt by neighbours and users of
adjacent roads. I have attached a considerate constructors condition though that will
mitigate the worst such effects.
xv) The cap of 1942 parking spaces on the site is exceeded
This is not the case and I have attached a condition to this effect.
xvi) Lack of detail about the north south link
The north south link is effectively a corridor that links block A to block E and connects
through to other hospital buildings on the east of the site. I consider that sufficient
information has been submitted with the application
xvii) The projecting wall on the front elevation could be better designed
I do not consider that a redesign of the projecting wall is necessary
xviii) The concourse in front of the hospital should be better designed
I agree with this comment and have attached a condition that requires details to be
submitted for approval
xix) Access to Knowles Court
The proposals have been amended to ensure that the junction to Knowles Court sits outside
the traffic light controlled junction. Further improvements are being discussed with
Knowles Court residents and the outcome of these will be reported to the Panel.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The details of this reserved matters application have been subject to lengthy discussions and the
Trust has made improvements to the application since it has been submitted which have included a
better junction on Eccles Old Road, the provision of a bus lane along the length of the hospital
frontage, the prospect of improved access arrangements for Knowles Court and additional parking
for the shops at Hope village. The proposals also include significant tree planting.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the design, scale and massing of
the building is appropriate, the impact of the development on neighbours, whether there is
sufficient parking, whether sufficient open space provision has been made, whether the loss of trees
on the Eccles Old Road frontage is acceptable and whether the proposed materials are acceptable.
The principle of the development has already been established by the outline permissions. I
consider that the detailed design of the proposed buildings is of high quality. Significant highway
improvements would result from this redevelopment and I consider that the provision of high
quality major new hospital buildings which would make a positive contribution to the street scene
and the surrounding area and the removal of Victorian wards that are no longer fit for purpose is to
be welcomed and supported. I am satisfied that there would be do significant detrimental effect on
residential amenity, the street scene or on any interest of acknowledged importance.
RECOMMENDATION:
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
That the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be authorised to enter into legal
agreements under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to secure highway improvements.
Conditions
1. 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.
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the external elevations and roofs of the development shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the
approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the Local
Planning Authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement for each
phase in relation to provision of street sweeping, permitted hours for construction works,
delivery of materials and delivery and collection of equipment and the provision and use of
on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's vehicles and no development or activities
related or incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating
statement unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4. At no time shall the number of parking spaces on the site exceed 1942.
5. The landscape scheme hereby approved shall be carried out within two years of the
commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
6. Notwithstanding details of landscaping the detailed design of the forecourt to Eccles Old Road
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Aurthority.
7. Notwithstanding details submitted the detailed elevational treatment of the multi-storey car
park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
8. Noise permitted from fixed plant and equipment shall be such that the rated level of noise
emitted (LAeq,t) is below the existing background level (LA90,t) by at least 5dB(A) at the
nearest noise sensitive properties.
9. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall make endeavours to secure the
provision of the 'preferred option' for the new Hospital junction on Eccles Old Road. If within
two months of the date of this permission, no agreement has been reached with the relevant
land owners, then the highway proposals for the junction of the site with Eccles Old Road
hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with condition 5 of the outline consent
00/40937/OUT.
(Reasons)
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
1. To prevent pollution of ant watercourse in accordance with policy EN18 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
2. Standard Reason R008B Development-Building in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
5. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
6. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
7. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
8. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
APPLICATION No:
06/53689/FUL
APPLICANT:
Padova Restaurants Ltd
LOCATION:
Danieli's Restaurant 10 Bridgewater Road Worsley M28 3JE
PROPOSAL:
Erection of ground floor extension to existing restaurant and
two storey extension (at first and second floor) to form eight
apartments, alterations to elevations and associated car parking
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the existing Danieli’s Restaurant site at 10 Bridgewater Road. The
application site is located on the west side of Bridgewater Road at the corner with Mayfield
Avenue. The site is bounded to the east by Bridgewater Road and commercial A2 services, to the
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
north by the 3 storey Old Co-op building, which occupies the corner plot between Bridgewater
Road and High Street and contains a range of commercial premises, to the west by a service road
and terraced properties on Mayfield Avenue and to the south by Mayfield Avenue and a 2 1/2
storey council office building.
The proposal is for the refurbishment and extension of the existing restaurant and the erection of 8
apartments at first and second floor levels. The proposed extension to the existing restaurant would
extend 2.1m to the south, up to the site boundary. The proposed first floor extension would
comprise no.4 x 2 bedroom apartments and a roof terrace. The proposed second floor extension
would comprise an additional no.4 x 2 bed apartments.
The proposal also includes provision for 6 garages to the rear accessed off the existing service
alley; one of which would be constructed to meet disabled parking standards. Bin storage would
also be incorporated into the boundary footprint. A secure cycle storage area is proposed between
the garages and the proposed entranceway to the residential units. The proposal also incorporates
the internal reconfiguration of the existing restaurant, which will reduce the existing restaurant
floorspace from 180m² to 154m² and changes to the existing faēade of the restaurant.
SITE HISTORY
00/40357/FUL Erection of extension to existing bar area - Approved August 2000
CONSULTATIONS
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle but recommends
conditions relating to noise mitigation measures, construction, fume extraction and a site
investigation survey.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No comments received to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flat, 5 Bridgewater Road
Units 1-5, Old Co-Op Buildings, High Street
1-15 Bridgewater Road
4-10 Mayfield Avenue (evens)
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 7 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Visual impact
Loss of light
Principle of residential development
Lack of parking
Impact during construction
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Building up to the boundary line
Scale
Loss of privacy
Closure of public car park on Mayfield Avenue
Councillor Turner has requested that the application be considered before Panel as he believes the
proposal is overdevelopment of the site and will exacerbate the existing car parking problems in the
area.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
S1/4 Retail and Leisure Development with Town and Neighbourhood Centres
Other policies:
ST1 Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST11 Location of New Development
ST12 Development Density
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
H1 Provision of New Housing Development
A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN16 Contaminated Land
EN17 Pollution Control
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
1. DP1 Regional Development Principles
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of residential
development is acceptable in this location; whether the proposed development is of a suitable
design and scale; whether there would be any impact on the amenity of existing or future residents
in the area; whether the proposed level of car parking is sufficient and whether the development
accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Principle of residential development
Adopted policy H1 states that all new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within a local area, residential development should also be of an
appropriate density, provide a high quality residential environment and provide an adequate level
of amenity.
The proposed application is for the development of 8 residential units within the town centre of
Walkden above an existing A3 use. The density equates to 186 dwellings per hectare. It is
considered that residential units are an appropriate form of development above commercial units
with designated town centres, provided that any potential adverse impact such as noise and fume
extraction can be successfully mitigated against.
Policy HOU1 of The Revised Draft of the Housing Planning Guidance (November 2006) states that
apartments are likely to be the most appropriate form of development within the city’s town and
neighbourhood centres and will help to maximise the number of people who have excellent access
to local facilities. The proposed development is located within Walkden town centre and therefore
it is considered that apartments are appropriate in this location.
Policy ST11 outlines the criteria for the location of new development. In accordance with policy
ST11 the application would involve the extension and conversion of an existing building sited in a
location well served by public transport links, close to local shops and services.
It is therefore considered that the proposed apartments are acceptable in principle.
Design and scale
Adopted policy DES1 states that all new development will be required to respond to its physical
context, respect the positive character of the local area and contribute to local identity and
distinctiveness. Policy DES 8 states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations to
or extensions to existing buildings that respect the general scale, character, rhythm, proportions,
details and materials of the original structure and complement the general character of the area.
The existing restaurant comprises of a single storey block with a flat roof. It lies adjacent to the
large 2 ½ storey Old Co-Op building which wraps the corner of Bridgewater Road and High Street.
It is considered that a 3 storey development is acceptable in this town centre location fronting on to
a busy road. The existing Council office building, separated by Mayfield Avenue is 2 ½ storey’s in
height as are the commercial buildings opposite the development site. The proposed 3 storey
building would have a roofline 0.90m lower than that of the adjacent Old Co-Op building.
Therefore, it is considered that the proposed building will not appear over dominant within the
street scene.
The residential properties on Mayfield Avenue to the rear of the site are 2 storey’s in height and the
proposed development would be set 9m away from the closest property at no. 4 Mayfield Avenue.
It is not considered that the proposed development would be an unduly dominant feature when
considered in context to the properties on Mayfield Avenue and therefore is considered acceptable
to be of an acceptable scale.
90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Around this radial point in Walkden Town Centre it is common to have a large 3 storey or 2 ½
storey building close to the centre with properties decreasing in scale as the streets move away from
the centre. It is considered that this building is in line with this design principle and would be of an
appropriate scale between the Old Co-Op building and the Council offices at 12 Bridgewater Road.
Many of the design cues on the proposed development have been taken from the existing redbrick
buildings within Walkden town centre. These include the use of sash windows with sandstone sills
and lintels as well as a proposed sandstone course band running between the first and second storey.
It is also proposed that the existing restaurant frontage is upgraded with the insertion of timber
fascias, pilasters and mouldings, which would represent a significant improvement over the
existing frontage.
It is considered that the proposed development complies with the objectives of policies DES1 and
DES8 and respects the character of the surrounding area better than the existing single storey flat
roof building.
Impact on amenity
Adopted Policy DES7 states that all new development, alterations and extensions to existing
buildings will be required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of
space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. It states that development will not be
permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of
other developments.
There are no habitable room windows proposed on the boundary with 4 Mayfield Avenue. There
are habitable room windows in the form of bedrooms adjacent to the proposed roof terrace; one of
the first floor windows faces a blank gable wall, which is 1 storey high at a distance of 9.4m and the
other bedrooms facing onto the proposed roof terrace will face the alley way to the rear of Mayfield
Avenue, it is therefore considered that this distance is acceptable not to have an adverse amenity on
future residents. The proposed habitable room windows to the front of the development face the
commercial properties opposite at a distance varying between 18m and 21m. It is considered in this
town centre location where there are no habitable rooms opposite that this distance is acceptable
and will not lead to an adverse impact on the amenity of future residents of the proposed
development.
Several letters of objection have been received from residents close to the site who are concerned
that the proposed development would lead to a loss of light to houses on Mayfield Avenue and
would also lead to a loss of privacy.
No formal sunlight/ daylight studies have been carried out as part of this application. The
application sites lies to the east of the terraces on Mayfield Avenue therefore, any potential
overshadowing would occur in the morning. There are no windows to the gable end of 4 Mayfield
Avenue. Both 4 and 6 Mayfield Avenue benefit from a 2 storey outrigger running the length of their
boundaries, which will already impede light coming from an easterly direction to the other gardens
on Mayfield Avenue. It is therefore not considered that the proposed extension will result in any
significant loss of light to the properties on Mayfield Avenue.
In addition the existing outriggers of 4 and 6 Mayfield Avenue would prevent the proposed
development from being viewed from the gardens of adjacent residents.
91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Access to the proposed roof terrace will be restricted for access and maintenance only and is not for
use by future residents of the proposed development. There will be no private amenity space
associated with this development, however, I consider this to be acceptable in this town centre
location.
Concerns have been raised regarding the impact during construction on the residents on Mayfield
Avenue, it is therefore considered appropriate to attach a condition requiring the submission of a
site operating statement.
Although specific details relating to fume extraction have not been submitted as part of this
application, provision has been made for the units to be accommodated concealed from view
behind the proposed roof terrace, minimising the impact on visual amenity. The proposed fume
extraction units will serve the existing restaurant and the final ducts will dispel fumes at roof level.
The Old Co-op contains commercial residents and there do not appear to be any windows that
would be affected by the installation of fume extraction plants in the proposed location.
Having had regard to the concerns of local residents I am satisfied that the proposed development
would not compromise the amenity of future or existing residents of the area and is in accordance
with policy DES7.
Car parking
Adopted policies A2 and A10 of the development plan require that provision be made for cyclists,
pedestrian and disabled residents and users of new developments.
Several residents have raised concerns about the impact that the proposed development would have
on the car parking situation in the local area. There is currently no provision for car parking for staff
or customer parking at the existing restaurant. There are double yellow lines located directly
outside the restaurant and to the service yard to the rear. Since the application proposes to reduce
the floor area of the existing restaurant, not increase it, it is not considered that this element of the
proposed development would result in an increase in parking levels in the surrounding area, above
the existing situation.
Reference has also been made to the closure of a public car park on Mayfield Avenue making the
parking situation worse. The car park on Mayfield Avenue has never formally been used by the
Council as a public car park. It may be however that has previously been an informal arrangement
whereby members of the public could use the car park which is now only used by the Council’s
housing office on the corner of Bridgewater Road and Mayfield Avenue.
Regarding car parking associated with the proposed apartments, 6 out of 8 apartments will have
garages. In addition provision for 2 cycle storage lockers has been made in line with policy A10 of
the Adopted UDP. Given the location of the proposed development to Walkden town centre and
public transport links, it is considered that parking provision at 75% is acceptable in principle.
Value added to development
The application has been subject to extensive pre-application discussions prior to its submission. In
addition alterations have been made during the course of the application, which include the
92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
widening of garages to the rear of the development to ensure they are used as garages, the
installation of cycle storage facilities and the introduction of further design features such as the
sandstone coursing on front elevation.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development
Plan and of the Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy. It is considered that the proposed development
is acceptable in principle and would not give rise to an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent
residents or an unsatisfactory level of traffic generation. It is considered that the proposed
development is of a high quality of design and would positively contribute to the street scene and
the vitality of Walkden Town Centre and therefore it is recommended that the application be
approved subject to conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the walls and roof of the development shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved
materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. The restaurant hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 10.00 and 22.00
Sundays to Thursdays and shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 10.00 and 23.00
Fridays and Saturdays.
4. Standard Condition G09X Extraction of Fumes etc.
5. Notwithstanding the recommendations provided in the submitted acoustic report, no
development shall be started until full details of acoustic mitigation measures for the party floor
between the ground and first floor have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Such scheme shall thereafter be implemented concurrently with the
building works. No dwelling shall be first occupied unless and until the appropriate acoustic
mitigation measures have been implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority.
6. No development shall be started until full details of acoustic glazing to the windows of all
living rooms and bedrooms of the proposed development have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall thereafter be implemented
concurrently with the building works to ensure that no dwelling is occupied until such time as
the appropriate acoustic glazing has been carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority.
7. Standard Condition M08 Site Investigation - new
93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
8. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use not less than 6 car parking spaces
shall be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
9. No external lighting shall be installed until full details have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall therefore be implemented as
approved.
10. A scheme for the provision of recycling facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. the approved scheme shall be implemented proir to the
occupation of any dwelling and shall be maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
11. No development shall be started until details of disabled access to the restaurant have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
12. Standard Condition G13F Considerate contractor
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
4. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
5. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
9. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
10. In accordance with policy EN22 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
11. In accordance with Policy DES2 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
12. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
94
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
2. 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.
APPLICATION No:
06/53692/COU
APPLICANT:
P Read
LOCATION:
23A Church Street Eccles M30 0DF
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from retail (Class A1) to sale of hot food (Class
A5) and installation of flue
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is an end terrace property which stands on Church Street within the commercial centre of
Eccles. There are a number of other A1 uses in the immediate area including newsagents, hot food
takeaways and a bridal shop at number 19. The unit is currently occupied by a hairdresser’s salon at
ground floor and a vacant unit at first floor. There are no residential properties adjacent or above the
proposal site. The proposed hours of operation of the shop are 8am – 11:30 Monday to Thursday,
8am to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays and 8am to 11pm on Sundays. It is proposed that the flue
is located to the South roof plane on the lower part of the roof and to the rear. The property is
directly adjacent to St Mary’s Church which is a Grade I listed Building.
SITE HISTORY
05/50551/COU - Change of use from shop (Class A1) to shop for the sale of hot food (Class A5).
REFUSED: The extraction system that the proposed change of use necessitates would by reason of
its size, siting and design, have an adverse impact upon the setting of the Grade1 Listed Building St
Mary's Church, contrary to policy EN12 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and
Policy CH4 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services: No comments received to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
95
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
13 to 23 (odds) Church Street
18 to 36 (evens) Church Street, Flat above 18 Church Street and St Mary’s Church.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one petition with 67 signatories. The following issues were raised:
No facilities for the disposal of refuse leading to vermin.
Existing/ increased litter problems in the locality
Decline of quality shops in Eccles Town Centre
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: S1 Retail and leisure development within Town and Neighbourhood Centres
Other policies: S3
Loss of Shops
S4
Amusement Centres, Restaurants and Cafes, Drinking Establishments and
Hot Food Takeaways
CH2 Development affecting the setting of a listed building
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the creation of a unit for the sale of hot
food within Eccles Town Centre and the impacts this may have upon the local economy and
environment and the specific impacts the development may have on the setting of the Grade I
Listed building of Saint Mary’s Church. Also, the impacts that the change of use may have upon the
amenities of occupiers of nearby residential and commercial units.
Policy S3 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that within existing town centres a
change of use from class A1 retail will only be permitted where it would not have an unacceptable
impact upon the vitality or viability of the centre either individually or cumulatively. Policy S4 of
the Adopted UDP states that proposals for developments which fall within class A3, A4 or A5 will
not be permitted where the use would have an unacceptable impact either itself or cumulatively on
the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers by reason of noise, disturbance, smell, fumes,
litter, parking or either pedestrian or vehicular traffic, the vitality and viability of town centres or
amenity. Policy CH2 states that planning permission will not be given for development which
would have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.
It is considered that the change of use from the current A1 use to a hot food takeaway within the A5
use class would not have a significant impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre.
Within Eccles, there remain a number of A1 uses and the community is well served by a good mix
of amenities. The loss of an A1 unit would not unduly affect the character of the town centre. If
these premises were to cease trading as a hairdressers and re-open as a takeaway, I am of the
opinion that the change of use of the unit would not have an adverse impact upon the vitality and/or
viability of the centre as both uses would generate similar footfall to the centre and the loss of an
additional A1 unit would not dramatically alter the services Eccles Town Centre offers. Therefore I
consider that the proposal would be in accordance with Policy S3 of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
96
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
It was considered that, in the previous proposal, the design and location of the flue would have a
significant and detrimental impact upon the setting of the adjacent Saint Mary’s Church – a Grade I
Listed Building. This factor was considered unacceptable and the application was subsequently
refused on these grounds. The amended proposal seeks to reduce the impacts upon Saint Mary’s
Church by encasing the proposed external flue in brick to match the original building. The flue is
also positioned on a low part of the roof and to the rear of the building, and does not extend above
the highest part of the roof, being just less than three metres in height at its longest point. It is
considered that this would ameliorate the previous detrimental effects of the external flue, and
would therefore not have a detrimental effect upon the setting of the listed building thereby
resulting in the proposal being in accordance with the requirements of Policy CH2 of the adopted
Unitary Development Plan.
Having regard to the criteria of Policy S4 of the Adopted UDP, it is considered that although the
proposal by its nature may create issues of litter and potential disturbance, the location for such a
development, within Eccles Town Centre is considered acceptable, and the issue of litter can be
addressed by attaching a condition for litter bin provision. It is considered that there would be no
loss of amenity to nearby residential occupiers as the units directly above and adjacent are not in
residential use. The previous application, was objected to by the resident of 18a Church Street,
however the impacts on residential amenity were not considered great enough to warrant an
additional reason for refusal on these grounds.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has amended the previously refused scheme to ameliorate the impacts upon the
Grade I listed building of Saint Mary’s Church. It is considered that the amended scheme is more
acceptable and would not detract from the special character of the building.
CONCLUSION
The main issues which are associated with this development are the impact the proposed flue would
have on the nearby listed building and whether this has been significantly reduced by the changes to
the scheme, the impacts upon neighbouring and nearby occupiers especially those which are
residential, and the impacts upon the vitality and viability of Eccles Town Centre.
It is considered that the impacts of the development upon the setting of the Grade I listed building
have been significantly reduced by amending the design. The use is considered to be acceptable
within a main town centre location such as Eccles and the loss of an A1 unit would not be
detrimental to the vitality and viability of the Town Centre. The neighbour objections are
acknowledged, however it is considered that the issues raised can be addressed by the imposition of
adequate conditions to a grant of planning permission. The scheme is considered to be in
compliance with Policies S1, S3 and S4 and Policy CH2 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
97
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
2. Notwithstanding the sample submitted no development shall be started until samples of the
facing materials to be used for the cladding of the flue of the development have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out
using the approved materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
3. The use hereby permitted shall not be operated on Bank Holidays and shall ONLY be operated
between the hours of 8:00am and 11:30 Monday to Thursday, 8:00am to midnight on Fridays
and Saturdays and 8:00am to 11:00pm on Sundays.
4. Standard Condition G12F Provision of bin
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R027B Amenity and quietude
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
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.
98
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
99
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 7th December 2006
100