PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
APPLICATION No:
06/52746/OUT
APPLICANT:
Chester Developments
LOCATION:
Land Formerly Mitchell Shackleton Green Lane Eccles M30
0RP
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the development of land for
residential purposes to include means of access
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The applications site comprises of 3.8 hectares of mostly vacant employment land and forms part of
the Nasmyth Business Industrial Estate. To the north of the site is the M602 motorway, where this
crosses (at a high level) Green Lane / Canal Bank. Further industrial premises and employment
uses lie to the south and east and beyond the Bridgewater Canal to the west of the site.
The proposal seeks outline permission for the use of land for residential purposes including means
of access to the site. Access to the site would be taken from Green Lane, where there is an existing
vehicular access. The submitted plans also indicate a proposed road linking Green Lane to the
existing commercial properties located at the bottom of Landsdowne Road.
The planning application was accompanied by an Employment Land and Viability Report,
Planning Support Statement, Noise Assessment, Design Statement, Phase 1 Desk Study and
Preliminary Risk Assessment, Transport Assessment and a Tree Survey.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections to the submitted Phase 1 Desk Study
but recommends a condition relating to further contamination investigations. In relation to noise it
is considered that the existing buildings situated upon the site may be distorting the submitted noise
readings and additional noise reading would be required to be taken upon removal of the buildings.
Greater Manchester Police Architcetural Liaison Officer – No objection but recommends any
development be built to Secure by Design standards.
Greater Manchester Transport Executive – No objection in principle but recommends:
improvement to Patricroft Railway Station in the form of signage, lighting and CCTV;
enhancement of pedestrian routes including the two under the motorway; residential Travel Plan.
United Utilities – No objection
Environment Agency – No objection but recommends a condition relating to land contamination
and protection of the Bridgewater Canal
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Chief Executive - Objects to the loss of employment land
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 26th May 2005
A press notice was published 1st June 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Range Roofing Ltd, James Nasmyth Way, Green Lane, Eccles
Creamline Dairies, Weymouth Road, Eccles
Unit 12, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane, Eccles
Bridgewater Metals, Weymouth Road, Eccles
9, 11, 16 and 14 Scott Avenue, Eccles
19, 22 and 24 Nansen Avenue, Eccles
50, 51 and 52 Canal Bank, Eccles
Units F3 To F5, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane, Eccles
Site 6, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane, Eccles
Unit 3, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane, Eccles
Unit D, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane, Eccles
B1 To B2, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane, Eccles
Unit 6, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane, Eccles
Unit F1, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane, Eccles
10 James Nasmyth Way, Eccles
APR Windows, Weymouth Road, Eccles
Unit F2, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane, Eccles
Ace Scaffolding, Bridgewater Park, Weymouth Road, Eccles
Lynx Express Limited, Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane, Eccles
5 James Nasmyth Way, Eccles
2 – 104 (evens) 1 – 43 (odds), 300 Lansdowne Road, Eccles
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received six letters of objection and one letter requesting to be kept informed of the planning
application progress in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues have
been raised:The existing business park would have an unacceptable impact in terms of noise on future
residents
The proposal may result in complaints to the Strategic Director of Environmental Services
from future residents regarding noise form the adjacent employment uses
The proposed development would have an adverse impact effect on the operating
conditions of the adjacent and various industrial uses contrary to Policy E5
Residential accommodation so close to industrial uses may pose health and safety issues
particularly if children get into the adjacent business park
The proposal would alleviate traffic issues on Landsdowne Road and displace them onto
Canal Bank which is already a busy road
Security of the Nasmyth Business Park and proposed boundary treatment
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Part of the site is occupied employing five employees
Councillor Sheehy and Councillor Lancaster have both expressed support for the application.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
EC1 – Strengthening the Regional Economy
SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
The following policies of the Draft RSS – The North West Plan (March 2006) are considered to be
of relevance:
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
W4 – Release of Allocated Employment Land
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: E4 – Sites for Employment Development
Other policies: ST3 – Employment Supply
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
EN16 – Contaminated Land
ST11 – Location of New Development
E5 – Development Within Established Employment Areas
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 issues of contamination have been taken into account and whether the proposal complies
with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with each of these
issues in turn.
Principle of Development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford. The development would see the re-use of
brownfield land thus complying with criteria 1b of Policy ST11 and the guidance contained within
draft Planning Policy Statement Note 3 – Housing (PPS 3), which seeks to prioritise the
development of such land over land that has not been previously developed (greenfield land).
The application site is considered to be previously developed land therefore the principle of its
re-development is acceptable in terms of the above policies.
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. This is
re-iterated in Draft Policy DP1
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Policy EC1 states that development in conjunction with local economic development strategies
should identify a range of suitable sites and premises for employment purposes which take account
of the needs of local businesses and communities and the need to ensure the modernisation and
diversification of older manufacturing industries and their premises.
Draft Policy W4 states that, outside a comprehensive review of commitments, there should be a
presumption against the release of allocated employment sites for such uses. If LPAS’s are
considering the release of such land, they should be satisfied that there is an appropriate supply of
alternative sites.
Policy E4/8 allocates the north east area of the application site for office, light industry, general
industry, storage and distribution. The Reasoned Justification to Policy E4/8 states that traffic
generation may place limits on the nature and scale of development due to the existing access from
Lansdowne Road and the potential problems of loss of residential amenity due to traffic generation
unless an alternative access from Green Lane is provided. The Inspector’s Report in Response to
the Public Inquiry for the newly Adopted Unitary Development Plan concluded in relation to Policy
E4 states “Following the advice, the Council has reviewed its employment sites to see whether any
might be better used for housing – with the result that the Council have sought to re-allocate a
number for that purpose. But the remainder have been judged to be necessary to meet the
employment requirement for the City over the plan period. I have agreed the overall employment
provision for the reasons given above. It would be foolish not to protect those sites in that context.
Moreover, I have concluded under Policy ST2 that there is no need to allocate more land for
housing in Salford. In short, there is every reason to protect the employment sites, and no reason to
allocate them for housing.”
Policy ST3 states a good range of local employment opportunities will be secured by maintaining
an adequate supply and variety of land and enabling the diversification of the local economy.
Policy E5 states that planning permission will only be granted for the re-use or redevelopment of
sites within an established employment area for non-employment uses where the development
would not compromise the operating conditions of other remaining employment uses and where
one or more of a number of criteria apply. The applicant has sought to demonstrate that the
proposals would meet criteria (a), which states:
“whether the developer can clearly demonstrate that there is no current or likely future
demand for the site or building for employment purposes.”
The Inspector’s Report in Response to the Public Inquiry for the newly Adopted Unitary
Development Plan concluded in relation to Policy E5 “that there would be no benefit in
redeveloping employment land for housing or other uses if a demand to retain it in employment use
still exists, particularly when the plan makes adequate provision for housing, mostly on previously
– developed land. Regeneration does not just result from house-building, but also from the
provision of employment.”
An Employment Land Study was undertaken in Salford by GVA Grimley in 2004. It recognised
that some named industrial sites in Salford are likely in the future to be lost to future residential
development, due to their unsuitability for modern employment uses. However the Naysmyth
Industrial Estate, within which the former Mitchell Shackleton site is located, is not one of the sites
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
named in the GVA Grimley Study. Indeed because of the likely loss of those sites that are named
in the study, GVA Grimley go on to conclude that …there is an even greater need to keep tight
control on the reminder of the employment land to preserve future supply.
Part of the application site is specifically allocated for offices, light industry, general industry
storage and distribution under Policy E4/8. The proposed principle for residential development
would result in an unacceptable loss of employment land and is therefore contrary to Policy E4/8.
There have been two recent appeal decisions that are relevant to this planning application.
Linnyshaw Industrial Estate, Walkden (03/47372/FUL)
The applications site extended to 12.6ha and formed a substantial part of Linnyshaw Industrial
Estate. The site comprised of a mixture of vacant and underused land together with occupied
industrial land and buildings.
The application sought permission for the replacement of all the employment buildings on the site
by residential development of around 400 dwellings. The application was in outline form with all
matters reserved.
The application was determined by the Secretary of State and the Department for Communities and
Local Government on the 8th June 2006. The Inspector concluded “that the application site is
physically suitable for residential development and there are no environmental constraints that
cannot be satisfactorily addressed by the imposition of planning conditions. There is no
quantitative need for the release of additional housing land in Salford to meet the current RSS
target, with a plentiful supply of sites with planning permission, but that target is under review and
early indications suggest a likely significant increase. The proposals present an opportunity to
address the deprivation and skewed housing profile in Walkden North and Little Hulton by the
provision of open market family housing on a large scale to create a more sustainable community.
On the other hand the removal of 12.6ha of employment land and premises at Linnyshaw Industrial
Estate would result in the displacement of local jobs and the loss of future employment
opportunities in Salford. In my view, those disadvantages outweigh the housing benefits of a
scheme and would result in significant harm.”
In line with Government guidance (ODPM Employment Land Reviews: Guidance Note December 2004) it is proposed that the City Council will undertake an employment land study for
the city in 2007. The study will seek to identify the requirements of future economic growth, and
the capacity of the existing portfolio of sites and premises to provide for such growth, both in terms
of quantity and quality. The findings of the study will inform the production of documents making
up the Local Development Framework, and other plans and strategies as appropriate.
Land at Firwood Timber Company, Westover Street, Swinton
The appeal site measured 1.03 hectares and lies immediately to the west of the Matalan retail store
in Swinton. The application sought outline planning permission for residential use with all matters
reserved. The planning application was refused under delegated powers due to the loss of
employment land contrary to Policy E5 of the now Adopted UDP.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The appeal decision was made on the 6th October 2006. The Inspector was of the opinion “Though
the appeal site is not an allocated site under the provision on ST3, it is an established employment
area as defined by E5. ………I am satisfied that the current supply of employment land in the City
is at best marginal and that there is no oversupply……..Although the proposed development would
not result in the loss of a site specifically allocated for employment uses in the UDP, it is a matter of
fact that it would result in the loss of a sustainably located employment site, reducing employment
land opportunities in Swinton and the City as a whole, at a time when the total supply is at best
marginal.”
Loss of Employment Land
The location of the Mitchell Shackleton site is within the boundary of an existing industrial estate
which itself forms a clearly defined and self contained area bordered by the M602 to the north and
Manchester – Liverpool mainline to the south and lends itself to continued use for employment
purposes as there are currently very few restrictions placed on operations within the estate due to
the lack of proximity of any residential areas. This type of location lends itself well to modern
business premises, especially considering its accessibility to public transport and local services.
Part of the site is also allocated in the Adopted UDP for employment purposes, which if developed
for none employment uses would further impact on the employment land supply situation in the
City.
A noise assessment accompanied the planning application and was assessed by the Strategic
Director of Environmental Services. The initial assessment revealed that further information and
noise reading would be required to be submitted by the applicant. The additional requested
information was submitted by the applicant and assessed. The Strategic Director of Environmental
Services concluded from the information submitted that the existing large buildings on the site have
resulted in the noise measurements being taken from limited locations within the site. The
existence of the buildings may also have an impact on the noise readings taken. Further noise
readings would not be possible until the existing buildings on the site have been demolished. I am
therefore of the opinion that insufficient evidence has been submitted to ensure that the site would
provide a suitable level of amenity for future residential occupiers with respect to noise and
disturbance from adjoining employment uses and that the proposed residential development itself
would not compromise the operating conditions of other remaining employment uses adjacent to
the application site.
The planning application was accompanied by a marketing strategy that the site had undergone in
previous years. The information consisted of:
A statement in the Lambert Smith Hampton Employment Land Viability Report “We have
been informed that the site has been actively marketed for employment uses for over 1
year.” The appendix of this report included the details of the site. No evidence
accompanied the report.
A statement in a letter from the applicant stating the previous owners marketed the site
between 2000 and 2003 for employment uses.
An enquiry sheet dated November to December 2004.
An enquiry sheet dated July to September 2004
From July to December 2004 a large to let / for sale board was displayed on the Green
Lane frontage of the application site.
Information relating to various advertisements placed
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
23/02/05 – half page advertisement in Estates Gazette,
09/03/05 - small box advertisement in Manchester Evening News,
17/03/05 – quarter page advertisement in Property Weekly,
18/04/05 – small box advertisement in Manchester Evening New, (commercial
section)
15/08/05 - small box advertisement in Manchester Evening New, (commercial
section)
Based on the information submitted in relation to the site marketing there is only evidence of two
marketing periods one from July to December 2004 and February to August 2005. The application
site has not been marketed during 2006. The information submitted relates to enquiry sheets and
advertisements, there is no evidence of pro-active marketing and the applicant has not contact the
Council’s Economic Development Section for assistance. I would not consider that the submitted
marketing information to provide evidence that the site has been pro-actively market for a period of
twelve months or more.
With regards to the viability of the site for employment use, the application was accompanied by an
Employment Land Viability Report. The report contained a number of scenarios for the viability of
the site for re-development.
The various scenarios related to the re-development of the site and not the re-use of the existing
buildings due to there current dilapidated state. The scenarios included:
100% Industrial Leasehold Development
100% Industrial Freehold Development
Industrial / Office Development
50% Industrial Leasehold Development and 50% Residential Development
50% Freehold Development and 50% Residential Development
100% Residential Development
The report was assessed by an Independant Valuation Consultant as part of the considerations of
this application. Only the 100% employment developments were assessed as the requirement of
Policy E5 refers to loss of employment sites.
Both the applicant’s consultant and the Council’s consultant agreed that the site was not an
attractive office destination and there were sufficient office destinations elsewhere and concluded
office development would not be a logical solution for development of the site.
With regards to 100% industrial leasehold development, the Lambert Smith Hampton report
concluded a negative return to this type of development. The Council’s consultant concluded that
this type of development would provide the applicant with a 3% positive return on the
development. The Council’s consultant disagreed with the negative return concluded by the
applicants consultant and was of the opinion the figures used represented a worse case scenario.
With regards to the 100% industrial freehold development, the Lambert Smith Hampton report
concluded a negative land value of almost £3 million. The Council’s Consultant concluded that
this type of development would provide the applicant with a 10% positive return which would be
approximately £1.2 million.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
There were a number of points relating to the valuation that the two Consultant’s could not agree
on, the main issues were:
The applicant’s consultant is of the opinion that a 10% return is not an acceptable level of
profit for a developer. The Council is of the opinion that the applicant has owned the site
for a number of years and the re-development of the site for industrial freehold
development would provide a return of approximately £1.2 million, this could be increased
further by investigating the reduction of costs and building in phases;
The applicant’s consultant have stated that they have used the actual costs for remediation
of the site, £650 000 based on a report. The Council’s consultant is of the opinion that this
is a particularly high figure and has requested on a number of occasions to view the
remediation costings, to enable him to re-consider his view, this has not been provided to
date;
The Council’s consultant has requested the purchase price of the land that the applicant
paid. The information has not been submitted, therefore he is of the opinion that the
applicant already owns the land and has derived an income from the tenants on the site
since its purchase in 2004. The Council’s consultant has therefore not included a figure for
land value within his viability appraisals and considers the land value to be a historic sunk
cost.
The conclusions of the Council’s Consultant are the site could be viably developed for an
employment use and the applicant would make a positive return on the development in monetary
terms.
Policy E5 clearly states that permission for loss of employment land would only be granted where
the proposed development would not compromise the operating conditions of other remaining
employment uses and then only if certain criteria are met. The proposal would result in an
unacceptable loss of employment land within the City. In the first instance insufficient evidence
has been submitted to ensure the proposed development would not compromise adjacent uses
contrary to Policy E5. Secondly I do not consider that the applicant can clearly demonstrate that
there is no current or likely future demand for the site for employment purposes contrary to Policy
E5, criterion 2a. The applicant has not demonstrated that any of the remaining criteria of Policy E5
apply, namely:
(b) there is not a strong environmental case for rationalising land uses and or creating open
space;
(c) The development would not contribute to the implementation of an approved regeneration
strategy or plan for the area; or
(d) The site is allocated for another use in the UDP.
Access to the Site
The application was accompanied by a Transport Assessment and the proposed development would
be accessed from Green Lane. An indicative plan submitted with the application indicates a new
road link from Green Lane to the commercial premises at the southern end of Lansdowne Road. It
also includes plans to create a cul-de-sac and turning head at the bottom of Lansdowne Road
effectively removing access from Lansdowne Road to the commercial properties. I have no
objections on highway safety grounds. This aspect of the proposal could help to reduce the amount
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
of industrial traffic on Lansdowne Road thereby improving residential amenity, however, it could
equally be achieved through redevelopment of the site for employment use.
OTHER ISSUES
Councillor Sheehy has requested this report includes an explanation and comparison to two recent
planning approvals on Employment Land Sites.
Valley Works Monton Road, Monton (04/48064/FUL)
The planning permission relates to a site of 0.84 hectares. The permission relates to the erection of
31 dwellings and 35 apartments and was dated June 2004. The area surrounding the site is largely
residential. The Valley Works was an isolated employment use in a residential area. This
permission was not implemented.
A subsequent application was approved August 2005 for the erection of 22 dwellings and 58
apartments. The principle of re-development of the site for residential purposes was established by
the previous extant planning permission above.
As mentioned the application site was an isolated employment use in a wholly residential area.
Land on Clifton Road, Clifton (05/49866/FUL)
The planning permission relates to a 0.75 hectare site located at the southern end of Clifton Road,
Eccles. The site is currently occupied by three businesses, AK Plant, Power Gems and Charles
Bell. To the south of the site is the M602 motorway. To the east and northwest of the site are
residential areas and adjacent to the west is a large engineering company (J Fletcher). To the north
is an existing commercial site which recently received outline planning permission for the erection
of 17 residential units (04/49622/OUT). Planning permission was granted for a two and half and
three storey buildings to provide 64 dwellings/apartments.
The applicant’s submitted an Employment Land Use Report, which provided details of available
premises within the City. The figures included from the Midas Database show that there are 29
available units of a similar size to those that would be lost, 17 units larger in size and a further 92
units of other sizes. Therefore, the Council were satisfied that the loss of the site to residential
purposes would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the City’s overall employment land
supply. The application was determined by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel in
March 2005 prior to the UDP Inquiry Inspector’s Report being published and a considerable time
before the adoption of the Current UDP in July 2006. Policy EC3 of the Adopted UDP at the time
of the decision states “the site and / or premises could be used for other purposes without a
resulting material or unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites and / or premises available
economic development.” The applicants submitted the above information which the Council
considered to be acceptable. The current UDP and Policy E5 is more explicit regarding the
information that is required to be submitted to accord with the policy, however it had limited weight
at the time of this decision.
Contaminated Land
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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.
A phase 1 desk study into contamination has been submitted with the application. The Strategic
Director of Environmental Services has assessed the report and recommends a condition requiring
further investigations to be attached to any planning approval.
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers
or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
As discussed above the submitted noise reading may be distorted by the existing buildings upon the
site therefore insufficient information has been submitted to ensure future occupiers of the site
would not be affected by the M602 motorway or the adjacent employment uses in terms of noise
and disturbance.
Consultation Undertaken by the Applicant
The applicant has submitted details of a survey carried out by themselves to local residents with
regards to the re-development of the application site. The applicant states that 350 questionnaires
were sent out and a summary of the 46 responses have been submitted. The majority of
respondents said yes to the redevelopment of the Mitchell Shackleton site, yes to the
re-development for residential purposes , yes to a link road from Green Lane and areas of parkland.
The Local Planning Authority have notified in excess of 100 adjacent business and residential
properties and no letters of support have been received to date.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, whilst I would consider the proposed access to the site to be acceptable and that
issues of contamination have been taken into account; I would not consider the principle of the
proposed development to be acceptable. I would consider the loss of employment land to be
unacceptable and that insufficient information has been provided to ensure the proposal would not
compromise the operating conditions of existing adjacent sites. The application is contrary to
Policies E3/8, E5 and ST3 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the development would not
compromise the operating conditions adjacent employment uses and that there is no current or
likely future demand for the site or buildings for employment purposes contrary to policy E5 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of an existing employment site
to the detriment of employment land supply within the City. The proposal is contrary to
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Policies E4/8, ST3 and E5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
06/52762/OUT
APPLICANT:
Vale And Valley Properties Limited
LOCATION:
Land To North Of Middlewood Street And East Of Oldfield
Road, Salford (Middlewood Locks)
PROPOSAL:
Outline application (access only) for mixed use development
comprising 142,697 sq.m residential use (Class C1 and C3);
67,773 sq.m commercial use (Class B1); and 27,191 sq.m
leisure/retail use (Class A1,A2,A3,A4 and D2) together with
associated uses, carparking, landscaping and infrastructure
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land bounded by Oldfield Road to the west, Middlewood Street to the
south and two main railway lines that converge on Salford Central Station to the north and east.
East Ordsall Lane and the former Hampson Street pass through the site. To the west, on the
opposite side of Oldfield Road there is an area of industrial and commercial uses. A new residential
development, Fusion, is under construction by George Wimpey Ltd on the opposite side of
Middlewood Street on a site known as Middlewood South. Further south is Regent Retail Park and
Regent Road. The Islington housing estate, Regent Trading Estate and other commercial uses lie to
the north beyond one of the railway lines. To the east, beyond the other railway line, lies Trinity
Way and the River Irwell with Manchester city centre beyond.
The site covers 8.52 hectares in total. Previously, the site was used for industrial and commercial
uses. Most of the buildings associated with these uses have been demolished and the site cleared.
The former ManCentral Trading Estate, off East Ordsall Lane, is still in existence but largely
vacant and awaiting demolition. The Cash Metals scrap recovery site also remains and will be
demolished as part of the development. A separate application has been submitted for the
relocation of this business to the Regent Trading Estate that is awaiting determination.
The
application site does not include an area of land to the east of East Ordsall Lane owned by Granada.
The site is bisected by the line of the former Manchester Bolton Bury Canal that runs from the
northwest corner of the site at Oldfield Road, through the railway arches and onto the River Irwell
at the southeast corner of the site. Planning permission was granted for the restoration of the canal
in April 2006 and it is due to be completed by late 2007. The applicants have liased closely with
British Waterways over the implementation of the canal and how it will be integrated into this
scheme.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The proposal is submitted in outline with approval sought for access only at this stage. It is
proposed to redevelop the site for a mixed-use development comprising residential, commercial,
hotel and leisure/retail uses together with car parking. In total, 237,659 square metres of gross
floorspace are proposed. It would comprise:
Residential – 142, 697 square metres (60%)
Commercial – 67,773 square metres (29%)
Leisure/retail – 27,191 square metres (11%)
The site would be divided into thirteen plots (referenced A-M).
Plot A
Plot B
Plot C
Plot D
Plot E
Plot F
Plot G
Plot H
Plot I
Plot J
Plot K
Plot L
Plot M
Predominantly residential with leisure/retail to the lower levels
Predominantly residential with leisure/retail to the lower levels
Commercial use
Commercial use
Commercial use with leisure/retail
Predominantly residential with a hotel and leisure/retail to the lower levels
Predominantly residential with leisure/retail to the ground floor
Predominantly residential with leisure/retail to the ground floor
Predominantly residential with leisure/retail to the lower levels
Predominantly residential with leisure/retail to the lower levels
Residential use
Multi-storey car park
Commercial, retail and leisure use
Each plot would incorporate car parking provision at undercroft and basement levels. The total
amount of car parking provided would be 2490 spaces (51% provision). The heights of the
proposed buildings would vary across the site from 7 to 32 storeys. The highest buildings would be
located at Plot A (25 storeys maximum), Plot E (32 storeys maximum) and Plot I (24 storeys
maximum). The location and heights of these buildings has been developed as part of a Design
Code, submitted with the application, and would comprise landmark buildings within the site.
Outside the development plots, there would be an extensive area of public realm and the reinstated
Manchester Bolton Bury canal. The public realm would include the laying out of new roads,
pedestrian streets and public spaces that link to the reinstated canal. Three new public spaces
would adjoin the canal at Canal Square, Lock Gate Plaza and Middlewood Basin Plaza. The canal
is a central feature of the site layout plan and has informed the development of the Design Code.
Vehicular access to the development plots is proposed from five points at: Oldfield Road/Hampson
Street (incorporating a new access road), from Middlewood Street (two access points at Nangreave
Street and Oldham Street) and from East Ordsall Lane (two access points at new junction with the
ManCentral access road). Vehicular access to the Granada land would be achieved from East
Ordsall Lane north and south. Within the site new access roads would be created to serve the
development plots. There would be 120 surface car parking spaces provided within the public
realm. Pedestrian routes through the site would be primarily east/west in direction running along
the canal side boulevard, along Hampson Street Boulevard and along Station Boulevard. There
would be secondary pedestrian routes running north/south in direction through the site.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
An Environmental Statement, a Design Code, a Traffic Assessment, a framework Travel Plan, a
Retail Statement, Public Realm Implementation Phasing plan, Public Realm to Compliment Canal
plan, a Public Realm Landscape Materials Palette and associated site layout drawings, accompany
the application.
There is an extant outline planning permission covering the land to the west of East Ordsall Lane
and part of the land to the east of East Ordsall Lane, that was approved in 2003. It is for a similar
mixed-use development. When that permission was granted, it was anticipated that the applicant
would acquire the ManCentral and Granada land and that it would be developed for commercial
uses.
Since that approval, the applicant has acquired the former ManCentral Trading Estate. The
application now under consideration covers a larger site area but still excludes the land owned by
Granada, which the applicant has been unable to acquire. The current proposals reflects a review of
development options that the applicant has undertaken, the preparation of a more detailed design
assessment of the site and a more thorough assessment of the environmental impacts of the
proposed development. It is intended that the Design Code, together with planning conditions, will
provide control for the Local Planning Authority over the form of new buildings, their uses and the
surrounding public realm.
The previous consent placed a limit on the amount of residential development at 69% (or 122,691
square metres) of the total floorspace. The current scheme proposes 60% (or 142,697 square
metres) of the total floorspace would be for residential development. The proportion of residential
to non-residential use therefore remains broadly similar. The increase in the amount of floorspace
reflects the larger site that has now been assembled.
SITE HISTORY
In September 2004, consent was granted for the realignment of the road network and formation of
access spurs (04/48651/FUL).
In September 2003, outline planning permission was granted on part of the site for a mixed-use
development (max floorspace 177, 817 square metres) including residential (69%), hotel, offices,
retail, commercial uses, car parking and infrastructure (02/45325/OUT). This application covered
an area of 7.6 hectares and excluded the ManCentral trading estate and land owned by Granada.
This consent is still capable of being implemented.
A previous consent (97/37335/FUL) was granted for the Snoworld development. The landowner
has now abandoned this scheme and the consent has lapsed.
Planning permission for the reinstatement of the canal was granted in April 2006 (06/52343/FUL),
which amended a previous consent granted in 2004 (04/48258/FUL).
Outside the application site, on Middlewood South, planning permission was granted in July 2004
for 212 apartments and 106 car parking spaces (04/48304/FUL). The scheme is being developed
by George Wimpey Ltd and is known as Fusion.
CONSULTATIONS
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Strategic Director for Environmental Services – recommend a number of conditions relating to air
quality, ground contamination and gas, noise, plant and equipment, sound attenuation within
mixed-use blocks, external lighting and construction management scheme. Request s106
contribution to air monitoring equipment.
Central Salford URC – The Middlewood Locks site is the subject of a URC priority project. The
size of the site and the scale of development, which could potentially be delivered in this area, give
Middlewood significance in helping to deliver the URC’s vision and Regeneration Framework.
The development of the site will involve the creation of a new waterside city quarter, which will
introduce new businesses and residents to Salford, benefiting the City’s economy. It will also
support the restoration of the Manchester Bolton Bury canal. Nevertheless, the Framework is
concerned with more than quantitative outcomes and the size and position of this site provides an
almost unprecedented opportunity to create a truly sustainable, viable, mixed-income, city-centre
community, perhaps also providing a location for family-orientated city centre living – a key
objective of both the City Council and the URC. The site is adjacent to two other priority projects
– Central Station Corporate Centre and Manchester Bolton Bury canal. Initial objections to the
application have been resolved through the provision of additional information and the attachment
of planning conditions.
British Waterways Board – no objections but require the s106 agreement to include a contribution
to the restoration of the canal and the formation of a management company. They also raise
concerns that there is a lack of clear overview relating to the canalside open space and request that
it be delivered prior to the commencement of other development on the site. They wish to see that
active frontages, as proposed in the Design Code, are actually delivered. They anticipate that the
canal will be completed by late 2007 and therefore wish planning conditions be imposed to ensure
the completed canal is adequately protected during construction works on the rest of the site.
Manchester City Council – welcome the principle of mixed-use development and suggest that a
substantially greater element of office floorspace is provided to complement employment related
schemes in Manchester.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – some concerns about the accessibility of the
site in relation to Salford Central Station, walking routes to bus stops, low frequency of bus routes
particularly along Oldfield Road and distance from nearest Metroshuttle stop. Request a
contribution of £500,000 towards improvement of pedestrian routes to Salford Central Station and
bus services including Metroshuttle.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – request a planning condition to ensure a programme of
archaeological investigations is undertaken and the protection and presentation of excavated and
exposed canal related industrial heritage features.
Greater Manchester Ecological Unit – agree with conclusions of ES but recommend that
construction works begin outside the bird nesting period (March-July inclusive) or that a survey of
the site for ground nesting birds be conducted and that a condition be attached for the removal of
Japanese knotweed.
Lancashire Wildlife Trust – no comment received.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – no objections received.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Environment Agency – no objections subject to a number of conditions re foul drainage works,
storage of chemicals, surface water drainage and eradication of Japanese knotweed.
United Utilities – response awaited.
English Nature – no comments received.
Countryside Agency – response received and no comments made.
Government Office North West - request to be informed of the decision.
Network Rail – provide comments on land ownership within the site, contribution to enhancing
Salford Central Station and vibration from piling works.
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Society – no comments received.
Open Space Society – no comments received.
Ramblers Association – no objections to the application.
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no comments received.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised in the press and on site.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Fusion, Middlewood Street
Units A-C Regents Park, Ordsall Lane
Units 1A and 2A, 36 Regents Park, Ordsall Lane
2, 38 Regents Park, Ordsall Lane
Unit B, 38 Regents Park, Ordsall Lane
Unit A, D, D1, D2, E1, E2, 42 Regents Park, Ordsall Lane
Unit C, 40 Regents Park, Ordsall Lane
Unit E1 and E2, 44 Regents Park, Ordsall Lane
Unit F, 46 Regents Park, Ordsall Lane
Unit G, Regents Park, Ordsall Lane
126 Ordsall Lane
5-9 (odd), 2, 6, 15-23 (odd) 47, 52,54, 58 Oldfield Road
Central Manchester Industrial Estate, East Ordsall Lane
Units C and D, Central Manchester Industrial Estate, East Ordsall Lane
BSS Ltd 33 East Ordsall Lane
The White House Hotel, Liverpool Street
1, 4 19, 26, 38 Liverpool Street
16 and17-19, 18-21 Crescent
Churchill House, 2-12 Crescent
Blackhorse Hotel, Crescent
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Apartments 101-107, 210-207, 301-307, 401-407, 501-503 Transport House, 1 Crescent
Nursery School, Hulme Street
5 Hulme Street
Multi Metal Stockholders, 7-19 Hulme Street
Unit 1, 2-4A, 4-6 Trinity Row, Irwell Street
Granada Television, Irwell Street
St Phillips C of E Primary School, Barrow Street
Flats 1-148 Cannon Hussey Court, Islington Way
Flats 1-24 Cornwall House, Rodney Street
Flats 1-148 Arthur Millwood Court, Rodney Street
2-44 Rodney Street
Flats 1-12 Edinburgh House, Rocket Way
60 Hampson Street
Creation Publicity, Cow Lane
Scott Inpac Ltd, Cow Lane
J Cocker, Casket Works, Cow Lane
1st and 2nd floor, Casket Works, Cow Lane
Allen Owen Engineering, Casket Works, Cow Lane
Community Transport, Casket Works, Cow Lane
Grafton Works, Oldham Street
4 West Duke Street
Kenmore Roofing, Hope Street
2-12 (evens) Muslin Street
K and M Roofing, Muslin Street
Dunnes Stores Ltd, Boots Co Plc Regents Park,
Kingsbury Interiors, Ordsall Lane
Sainsburys Supermarket, 100 Regent Road
Stamford House, 361-365 Chapel Street
The Bell Tower, 357 Chapel Street
1-4 (all) Woodlark Close
2-8 (evens) Swiftsure Avenue
1-10 (all) Firefly Close
J Cash Ltd, West Duke Street
Riverside House, Irwell Street
1 James Street
Albert Mill, 41 Oldfield Road
45-47 Oldfield Road
Units 1-5 (all) and New Islington Mill, Regent Trading Estate, Oldfield Road
Islington Mill, James Street,
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of representation/objection in response to the planning application
publicity from a local business, from the Canon Hussey Association of Residents and Tenants
(CHART) and from Granada TV. The following issues have been raised:
Concern about additional hot food takeaways
Concern about transport impact during construction and post-build
Concern about construction related noise and dust
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Proposed 32-storey tower on Plot E would have a major impact on Arthur Millwood and
Cannon Hussey residents
Applicant fails to demonstrate sustainability issues in the application
Raises question about how many long-term jobs would be for local residents
Granada state they have no objection to the application but raise a number of issues relating to land
ownership, noise and pollution, flooding on their site and raising concerns that the proposed layout
and building heights contained in the Design Code and proposed access arrangements would limit
future development on their land.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site Specific Policies: none
Other policies: DP1: Economy in the Use of Land and Building
DP2: Enhancing the Quality of Life
DP3: Quality in New Development
DP4: Promoting Sustainable Economic Growth and Competitiveness and Social
Inclusion
SD1: The North West Metropolitan Area Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
EC8: Town Centres – Retail, Leisure and Office Development
UR1: Urban Renaissance
UR2: Inclusive Social Infrastructure
UR3: Promoting Social Inclusion through Urban accessibility
UR4: Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
UR9: Affordable Housing
UR10: Greenery, Urban Greenspace and the Public Realm
ER5: Biodiversity and Nature Conservation
ER7: Water Resources
EQ2: Air Quality
EQ3: Water Quality
T9: Demand Management
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/2 – Development in Mixed Use Areas (Chapel Street West)
Other policies: ST1: Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods
ST2: Housing Supply
ST3: Employment Supply
ST 4: Tourism
ST5: Transport Networks
ST6: Major Trip Generating Development
ST7: Mixed-Use Development
ST8: Environmental Quality
ST9: Retail, Leisure, Social and Community Provision
ST11: Location of New Development
ST12: Development Density
ST15: Historic Environment
DES1: Respecting Context
DES2: Circulation and Movement
DES3: Design of Public Space
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
DES4: Relationship of Development with Public Space
DES5: Tall Buildings
DES6: Waterside Development
DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES9: Landscaping
DES10: Design and Crime
DES11: Design Statement
H1: Provision of New Housing Development
H2: Managing the Supply of Housing
H4: Affordable Housing
H8: Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development
S2: Retail and Leisure Development Outside Town Centres, and Neighbourhood
Centres
S4: Amusement Centre and Food and Drink Uses
A1: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A2: Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A5: Buses
A8: Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A9: Provision of New Highways
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN10: Protection of Species
EN14: Derelict, Underused and Neglected Land
EN16: Contaminated Land
EN17: Pollution Control
EN18: Protection of Water Resources
EN22: Resource Conservation
R2: Provision of Recreational Land and Facilities
DEV5: Planning Conditions and Obligations
CH5: Archaeology and Ancient Monuments
CH7: Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal
E3: Knowledge Capital
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP1: Regional Development Principles
RDF1: Main Development Locations
W1: Strengthening the Regional Economy
W2: Broad Locations for Regionally Significant Economic Development
W5: Retail Development
L4: Regional Housing Provision
L5: Affordable Housing
RT2: Management and Maintenance of the Highway Network
RT6: Parking Policy and Provision
RT7: A Regional Framework for Walking and Cycling
EM2: Remediating Contaminated Land
MCR1: Manchester City Region Priorities
MCR2: Regional Centre and Inner Areas of the Manchester City Region
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
There are a number of Supplementary Planning Documents, which are also relevant to the
determination of this application. These include Design and Crime, Trees, the Greenspace Strategy
and Biodiversity and Nature Conservation. The Council’s draft Planning Obligations SPDs is also
relevant, but has not as yet been adopted so can therefore only be afforded limited weight in the
decision making process. The Council has recently produced Housing Planning Guidance (revised
draft 7/11/06) that is due to be adopted on 20 December 2006. The latter does not form part of
Salford’s Local Development Framework but when adopted as council policy, it will be a material
consideration in the determination of planning applications.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main issues in the determination of the application are: whether the principle of the
redevelopment of the site is acceptable; whether the principle of the proposed uses is acceptable;
whether the proposed housing provision is acceptable; whether the proposed design and access are
acceptable; whether the impacts of the proposed development on the environment would be
acceptable; and whether the proposed development would accord with the Council’s policies on
open space and planning obligations. These issues will be discussed in turn below.
Principle of the Redevelopment of the Site
Policy ST11 outlines the sequential approach to the bringing forward of land for development and
details the order in which sites for development should be brought forward: existing buildings;
previously developed land which is well served by a choice of means of transport and is well related
to housing, employment, services and infrastructure; previously developed land in other locations
provided that adequate levels of accessibility could be achieved; and finally greenfield sites in
locations which are, or would be made to be, well served by a choice of transport and well related to
employment, services and infrastructure.
Policy H2 requires the release of land for housing development to be managed in accordance with
the sequential approach set out in Policy ST11.
Policy DP1 of RSS requires economy in the use of land and buildings. It states that development
plans should adopt a sequential approach to meeting housing needs as follows: firstly, the effective
use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban areas; secondly, the use of previously
developed land; and finally the development of previously undeveloped land, where it would avoid
areas of important open space, is well located in relation to houses, jobs, other services and
infrastructure and is or can be made accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.
Policy DP1 of Draft RSS also encourages the effective use of land, buildings and infrastructure and
advocates the sequential approach to meeting development needs, as outlined in Adopted RSS
Policy DP1.
Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3), provides a definition of previously development
land:
‘Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure including
the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure’
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The whole site is considered to be previously developed land, as defined in Annex B of PPS3. It
was previously used for a mixture of industrial and commercial uses.
The principle of development on the site is therefore considered to be appropriate. It would accord
with the sequential approach to development, which prioritises the re-use of existing buildings and
previously developed land over the development of greenfield land, as set out in PPS1, PPS3,
Policy DP1 of RSS and Policy ST11 of the UDP.
The principle of development on much of the site has previously been accepted through the
granting of outline planning permissions (02/45325/OUT).
In view of the brownfield nature of the site and given that permission has already been granted for a
mixture of uses on the site, I am satisfied that the principle of its redevelopment is acceptable and in
accordance with the above policies.
Principle of the Proposed Uses
1. Mixed Use
The site is located within the Regional Centre, which is identified within the UDP Spatial
Framework as the major focus for investment, economic development, and leisure and tourism
activity during the plan period. The UDP encourages the continued development of the Regional
Centre. There is a strong emphasis on securing a broad mix of uses and a very high quality of
design in order to maximise the area’s vitality and attractiveness. The UDP allows for a very
significant increase in the residential population of the area but not at the expense of the area’s
mixed-use character.
Policy ST7 states that mixed-use development that minimises the need to travel will be focused in
the Chapel Street regeneration area, among other locations within the city. It recognises that higher
densities may be required but that the identified mixed-use areas are all highly accessible and where
diverse activity and the efficient use of land would be appropriate providing the potential for
conflict between uses is minimised.
Policy MX1 states that Chapel Street West will be developed as a vibrant mixed-use area with a
broad range of uses and activities, and development within them will be required to support this. In
determining the appropriate mix of uses on individual sites, policy MX1 states that regard will be
had to a range of criteria:
The positive impact that the proposed development could have on the regeneration
of the wider area;
The use of 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 contribution that the proposed development would make towards securing
activity in the area throughout the day;
The prominence of the location, particularly in relation to key pedestrian and other
transport routes;
The size of the site; and
The potential to support the establishment, expansion and success of the
Knowledge Capital, in accordance with Policy E3.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The whole site falls within the Chapel Street West mixed-use area, defined on the Proposals Map as
MX1/2. The proposal incorporates a broad range of uses and activities including offices, housing,
retail, leisure, hotels, essential infrastructure and new public spaces. Specific aspects of the criteria
listed in the policy are addressed in more detail below.
This application is considered to be fully consistent with the overall purpose of Policy MX1, and
would help to consolidate Chapel Street West as an attractive and successful mixed-use area
forming an integral part of the Regional Centre. It would also make a significant contribution to
delivering the principles of the Spatial Framework of the UDP.
2. Commercial use
Policy MX1 identifies offices as an appropriate use within a mixed-use area. The current proposal
would provide 67,773 square metres of commercial space. It would represent 29% of the gross
development space and therefore would retain a similar proportion to the scheme approved
previously. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed level of office space within the development
is acceptable.
The commercial elements of the proposal are concentrated within plots C, D, E and M. It is likely
that plots D and E would be developed until the later stages of redevelopment due to unresolved
land ownership constraints. To ensure that a true mixed-use scheme is achieved during the course
of redevelopment, a planning condition is proposed to ensure that plots C, D and E have been
prepared for development at an early stage within the redevelopment of the site. This would
include ground remediation and marketing of plots C, D and E for commercial use. The
remediation and marketing of these plots would be required to be commenced prior to the
occupation of Plots G and H which are envisaged to be developed initially.
I am satisfied that the scheme would provide for a significant proportion of non-residential uses and
that the proportion of commercial use is acceptable.
3. Residential use
Policy MX1 identifies housing as an appropriate use within a mixed-use area. In paragraph 5.8 of
the reasoned justification it states that on larger sites, single-use residential developments are
unlikely to be acceptable.
The current proposal would provide 142,697 square metres of residential floorspace. While it
would provide more floorspace than previously approved, the current scheme relates to a larger
site. Overall, the mix of uses would result in a lower proportion of residential use (60% compared
to 69%) across the site than previously approved. It is recognised that the residential element of the
scheme will be the driver for the regeneration of the site, however, each predominantly residential
plot (A, B, G, H, I, J and K) will incorporate non-residential uses at ground floor level or active
frontages to ensure activity in the area throughout the day. The latter is identified in policy MX1 as
a positive feature of mixed-use developments. The total number of residential units would be 1,754
apartments. It is proposed to attach planning conditions to limit the number of apartments that
could be developed on each plot. This is required to ensure that the proposal remains which the
parameters of the Environmental Statement and Traffic Assessment but would also ensure that the
number of residential units is controlled in the interests of achieving a mixed-use development.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
I am satisfied that the scheme would provide for an acceptable amount of residential use on the site
within a balance of other uses.
4. Retail
Policy MX1 identifies retail uses as appropriate within a mixed-use area, provided that this is
consistent with the retail policies of the UDP.
Policy S2 states that planning permission will only be granted for retail and leisure where it can be
clearly demonstrated that: there is a quantitative and, where appropriate, qualitative need for the
development; there are no more appropriate sites or buildings available; there would be no
unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of any town or neighbourhood centre; the site will
be well served by a choice of means of transport; the development would not give rise to
unacceptable levels of traffic congestion; the development would be of an appropriate scale; the
development would be of a high standard of design; and that the development would not have an
unacceptable impact on environmental quality or residential amenity.
Policy EC8 of RSS states that development plans and other strategies should recognise the
continued need to protect, sustain and improve all the town and city centres in the Region by
encouraging new retail, leisure and/or mixed use developments within existing defined town and
city centres and directing office developments that generate significant numbers of trips to suitable
locations within or adjoining main city and town centres, or district centres, and near to major
public transport interchanges within urban areas. It continues to promote the adoption of a
sequential approach to retail and leisure development.
Draft RSS Policy W5 states that plans and strategies should promote retail investment where it
assists in the regeneration and economic growth of the NorthWest’s town and city centres.
Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres, seeks to maintain the vitality and
viability of existing centres. It sets out the five tests which an applicant should demonstrate
compliance with. These are: a) the need for the development; b) that the development is of an
appropriate scale; c) that there are no more central sites for the development; d) that there are no
unacceptable impacts on existing centres; and e) that locations are accessible.
A retail statement has been provided that describes how the proposals would comply with PPS6 and
how the retail element of the scheme would contribute to the mix of uses on the site.
Taking each of the criteria of Policy S2 in turn, point i. of the policy relates to the need for the
additional retailing. The principle of 2,495 square metres of retail floorspace as part of a mixed-use
development on this site has already been established through the existing outline planning
permission. The current scheme proposes 6,320 square metres of retail floorspace. The current
proposal involves a greater amount of development as a result of the enlarged site area that in itself
would generate local need. Close to the site there are other residential and mixed use developments
that are proposed or under construction, for example, the Fusion development on Middlewood
Street that will lead to the completion of 212 additional apartments.
Point ii. relates to the sequential test. Given the size of the development, it would be appropriate for
it to include some retail development to meet the local needs of residents, employees and visitors,
thereby reducing the need to travel and contributing to the development of a vibrant mixed-use area
in accordance with Policy MX1. The nearest Neighbourhood Centres are at Mocha Parade and
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Salford Shopping City, and therefore on-site retail provision to meet local needs is considered
appropriate.
Point iii. relates to the impact on existing centres. Given the need that would be generated by the
proposed development, its location and the scale of the retailing proposed, it is not considered that
the retail provision would have an unacceptable impact on existing centres, for example by
diverting trade away from them. It is proposed to attach a planning condition limiting the size of
individual units to 750 square metres to ensure that they remain of an appropriate size for
convenience shopping purposes.
Point iv. relates to accessibility, and point v. to traffic generation. The retailing would be accessible
to its catchment population, given that it would be serving a local need, and would therefore be
unlikely to generate significant levels of traffic. These issues will be considered in detail in a later
section of this report relating to transport.
Point vi. relates to the scale and relationship to the catchment population, which are considered to
be appropriate as discussed above.
Points viii. and ix. relate to issues that would be considered through applications for the approval of
reserved matters and are not therefore directly relevant at this stage of the proposal.
The proposal is for a mixed-use development. Within the overall development, retail uses would
comprise 2.7% of the gross development space. It is not considered that they dominate the mix of
uses but rather form a complementary role within the balance of non-residential uses. The Design
Code seeks to ensure that active frontages and uses will be achieved to the ground floor of the plots.
Retail use will form a significant element of the ground floor uses and will contribute to activity
within the site throughout the day.
In light of the above, I am satisfied that the retail element of the proposal is acceptable and complies
with the above policies.
5. Leisure use
Policy MX1 identifies leisure as an appropriate use within a mixed-use area.
Policy S2, summarised above, relates to leisure developments outside town and neighbourhood
centres.
The current proposal is for 8,345 square metres of leisure use, incorporating restaurant, cafes and
drinking establishments, together with a 12,526 square metre hotel development incorporating
retail and leisure facilities. Within the overall development, leisure uses would comprise 3.5% of
the gross development space. It would contribute to the mix of uses and activity within the area
particularly on ground floor frontages facing the canal and areas of public realm. The proposed
level of leisure facilities would be ancillary to the development proposed and is therefore
considered acceptable.
6. Hotel use
UDP Policy MX1 identifies hotels as an appropriate use within a mixed-use area.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The principle of a hotel as part of a mixed-use development on this site has already been established
through the existing outline permission. It would contribute to the mix of uses within the area, and
would support the function of Chapel Street as one of three key tourism areas within the city, as
identified in UDP Policy ST4. It is therefore considered acceptable.
Housing Provision
Policy H1 requires all new housing developments to, inter alia, contribute towards the provision of
a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area, in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability.
Policy H4 requires that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet
local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the Council, to provide affordable
housing of appropriate types.
Draft RSS Policy L5 requires plans and strategies to set out requirements for affordable housing.
Policy HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance states that apartments will normally be the most
appropriate form of housing provision. Policy HOU2 states that where apartments are proposed,
they should provide a broad mix of dwelling sizes, both in terms of the number of bedrooms and the
net residential floorspace of the apartments. Small dwellings should not predominate and a
significant proportion of three bedroom apartments should be provided wherever practicable.
It is likely that all of the housing provision within the site would be in the form of apartments. The
proposal would be consistent with Policy HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance.
The applicants are aware of the importance of providing a diverse mix of apartment types and sizes
across the site, in accordance with Policy H1 and this will be controlled through planning
conditions that would ensure that at least 10% of apartments contain three bedrooms and that at
least 50% of apartments are greater than 57 square metres in size on most of the predominantly
residential plots. Plots G and H would have a lower threshold (5%) for three bedroom apartments.
I am satisfied that whilst the provision for housing mix on these plots would be lower than expected
elsewhere on the site, it would still make an acceptable contribution to achieving a mix of
apartment sizes across the whole site. Schemes on these plots have been substantially developed
prior to the production of the Housing Planning Guidance, in tandem with the preparation of this
outline application, therefore there are other considerations that would warrant a reduction in the
standards of the Housing Planning Guidance.
Policy HOU3 of the Housing Planning Guidance proposes that on residential sites of this scale, at
least 20% of dwellings should be in the form of affordable housing. It outlines a number of material
considerations where a lower proportion of affordable housing would be appropriate. The material
considerations include schemes that were substantially developed before the adoption of the
guidance and which have exceptional costs associated with the development. This application was
submitted in May 2006 and the draft guidance is not due for adoption until 20 December 2006. The
applicant has played a key role in the scheme to reinstate the Manchester Bolton Bury Canal and
has agreed to contribute £2.1 million to the costs of reconstructing the canal together with
maintenance payments over a 100 year period. The reconstruction of the canal would have major
regeneration benefits for the wider area.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The applicants do not intend to provide affordable housing on this site. I consider that in view of
the timing of the submission of the application and their contribution to the reinstatement of the
canal that this comprises a material consideration that would outweigh the requirement for
affordable housing.
Taking all of the above into account, I consider that the development has the potential to
consolidate and expand the success of Chapel Street, the Regional Centre and the regeneration of
the city as a whole. I also consider that, due to their scale and nature, the significant benefits of the
scheme, as discussed above, outweigh the need to secure affordable housing on the site and I
therefore have no objections to the application on these grounds.
Design of Buildings and Public Realm
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 DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to be fully accessible to all people,
maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists to, through and around the site, enable
pedestrians to navigate their way through an area by providing appropriate views, vistas and
transport links, enable safe, direct and convenient access to public transport facilities and other
local amenities and minimise potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
Policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public space,
that public space must be designed to, have a clear role and purpose, responding to established or
proposed local economic, social, cultural and environmental needs, reflect and enhance the
character and identity of the area, form an integral part of, and provide an appropriate setting for,
surrounding developments be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit, be of an appropriate
scale, connect to established pedestrian routes and other public spaces and minimise, and make
provision for, maintenance requirements.
Policy DES4 states that development that adjoins public space shall be designed to have a strong
and positive relationship with that space.
Policy DES5 outlines a number of circumstances where tall buildings will be permitted, including:
where the scale of the development is appropriate to its location; the location is highly accessible by
public transport, walking and cycling; the buildings would positively relate to and interact with the
public realm; the buildings would be of the highest quality, would make a positive addition to the
skyline and would not detract from important views; there would be no unacceptable
overshadowing or overlooking; there would be no unacceptable impact on microclimate,
telecommunications activity, aviation safety, and the development would be consistent with other
UDP policies.
Policy DES6 requires all new development adjacent to Manchester Bolton Bury canal 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 at all times, pedestrian links between
the waterside walkway and other key pedestrian routes, and where appropriate, ground floor uses
which generate pedestrian activity. Development will also be required to, where possible, protect,
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
improve or provide wildlife habitats and conserve and complement any historic features and not
affect the maintenance or integrity of the waterway. Finally, the policy requires all built
development along the Manchester Bolton Bury canal to face onto the water, incorporate entrances
onto the waterfront where appropriate, be of the highest standard of design, be of a scale sufficient
to frame the edge of the waterside and enhance views from, of, across and along the waterway.
Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and soft
landscaping provision. Where landscaping is required as part of a development, it must be of a high
quality, reflect and enhance the character of the area, not detract from safety and security, form an
integral part of the development, be easily maintained, respect adjacent land uses and wherever
possible make provision for the creation of new wildlife habitats.
Policy DES10 development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime,
anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime.
Policy DES11 requires the submission of a design statement with all major applications explaining
how the development takes account of the need for good design, the design principles and design
concept and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, density, scale, visual appearance
and landscaping, the relationship of the development to its site and the wider context and how the
development will meet the Council’s design objectives.
Policy UR10 of RSS seeks to ensure that strategies are in place for the design, management,
maintenance and enhancement of public realm and urban greenspace. It outlines a number of
priorities, including enhancing the setting of residential neighbourhoods, increasing the overall
stock of urban trees and improving accessibility and community safety.
In considering the appropriateness of the design and access of the proposed development, it is
important to note that the application is in outline, with approval sought only for access. Scale,
appearance and landscaping are all reserved for determination at a later date. Therefore, many of
the issues raised by the above policies will be considered at reserved matters stage, when detailed
designs are submitted and are not directly relevant to the consideration of this application.
The applicants have submitted a Design Code and Illustrative Master Plan with the application.
The aim of the Design Code is to establish clear guidance for the planning and regulation of the
whole development in order to achieve a good quality, sustainable, safe, attractive and desirable
environment. It has been produced in consultation with Council officers and advisors and its
purpose is to promote successful dialogue between developers and the Local Planning Authority
and other agencies. The Design Code sets out a number of Fixed Design Requirements for each
plot that are replicated in planning conditions 6-18. Any submission of reserved matters must
accord with these requirements and therefore provide a mechanism to control future new
development by the Local Planning Authority. The matters covered include:
The proposed uses
Gross development space
Min/max limits on floorspace for different uses
Number of apartments
Maximum number of parking spaces
Maximum building heights and storeys
Building line for each plot
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Active ground floor uses and frontages
Elsewhere in the Design Code, it provides guidance on optional design components to encourage
high quality and innovative design for both buildings and landscaping. The Design Code includes a
section on sustainability that sets out expected good practice and a planning condition would ensure
that buildings meet EcoHomes and BREEAM standards for offices to achieve a ‘very good’ rating.
A full site appraisal has been carried out and has informed the development of the Design Code.
The Design Code identifies the need for landmark buildings to ‘place’ the site when approached
and viewed from a distance, while providing dramatic impact within the overall development.
Three taller buildings are proposed on plot A (max 25 storeys), plot E (max 32 storeys) and plot I
(max 24 storeys), located at the corners of the site. These plots coincide with the three main
gateways into the area for pedestrians, public transport and vehicle users. In addition, the location
of new buildings and public space along the canal corridor will create a strong sense of place and
bring a distinct visual and spatial character to the development area.
The layout of the site would follow much of the previous street pattern and gives some strong
development lines, visual corridors and distinct development edges. Oldfield Road, Middlewood
Street and East Ordsall Lane are retained as major vehicle thoroughfares. Hampson Street and
Allwood Street are given a new emphasis, as pedestrian friendly tree lined boulevards. The
legibility of the scheme would be further defined by the canal and through a hierarchy of linked
public spaces. The main axes of the development link the open spaces and main features of the
public realm. The majority of the plots would front the canal.
The design and implementation of a high quality public realm is as important to the success of this
development as the buildings themselves. In developing the Design Code, the applicant’s agents
have placed significant emphasis on the value and function of the public realm. The public realm
strategy includes three key elements:
Significant Public Realm – the canal will provide the main focus, however, public spaces
are provided adjacent to the canal and within the boulevards running through the site. The
public spaces adjacent to the canal have been designed to create a varied experience when
walking along the canal incorporating some areas where buildings are close to the canal
which then open up into wide spaces with buildings well set back and views to other parts
of the site.
Private Residential Spaces – the detail of these areas will come forward as part of the
detailed design of each plot but the Design Code allows the opportunity for ‘C’ shaped
buildings with private amenity space potentially linking into public spaces creating a less
confined streetscape and reduced potential overlooking.
Boulevards and Street Greening – the aspirations of the URC for tree lined boulevards
has been taken on board and a number of tree lined streets are proposed within the site and
along the canal together with tree planting on Oldfield Road, Middlewood Street and East
Ordsall Lane.
The public realm outside the development plots would be implemented by the applicant and would
be maintained by a management company as a requirement of the s106 planning obligation. The
implementation of the public realm would be carried out on a phased basis. The applicants have
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
identified a canal side public realm area that would be implemented within a timescale linked to the
completion of the canal. This area would be planted and surfaced soon after the completion of the
canal and would be screened from the rest of the development to ensure that a) the canal and its
towpath are not damaged by construction machinery and equipment, and b) to ensure that, as far as
possible, the setting of the canal is attractive and inviting to its users while construction works are
underway elsewhere on the site. The applicant’s agents have produced a series of detailed drawings
indicating the associated public realm required to be constructed alongside the development of each
plot. The implementation of the public realm areas would be controlled by way of a planning
condition.
The applicants have submitted a Public Realm Landscape Materials Palette to illustrate the type and
quality of proposed landscape planting, surfacing materials and street furniture within the public
realm. The applicant has sought to ensure that the proposed surfacing materials would complement
the proposals for the towpath to the Manchester Bolton Bury canal. A combination of sandstone
around the canal together with granite and concrete slabs and setts elsewhere within the site are
proposed in harmonising colours. The proposed street furniture would be contemporary in design
and of a high quality design specification. The proposed landscape planting includes a significant
amount of tree planting throughout the site to reflect the URC aspirations for ‘green boulevards’. It
includes a belt of native shrub planting along the north west boundary adjacent to the railway to
serve as a ‘green’ backdrop and to improve local biodiversity.
Public art is proposed at six locations within the site in areas of significant public realm, alongside
the canal and within the proposed new boulevards.
I am satisfied that the principles of the Design Code and Illustrative Masterplan are appropriate for
this site. High density development will be essential in order to make the most efficient use of the
site and to respond to the site’s context, which is increasingly characterised by tall, high quality
buildings.
A detailed assessment of the proposal’s compliance with Policy DES5 will only be possible when
the precise details of the proposed buildings are finalised at reserved matters stage. I am, however,
satisfied that the Design Code establishes a robust and well thought out set of principles to guide the
design of new buildings and spaces around them. Issues relating to the development’s impact on
microclimate will be discussed in a later section of this report.
In view of the tall buildings proposed on the site, the potential for overshadowing to the Manchester
Bolton Bury canal, to buildings and public spaces within the development and to existing
residential properties at the Islington housing estate was assessed as part of the Environmental
Statement. The applicants have carried out a Sun Path Analysis, based on the building forms
suggested in the Design Code. It concluded that due to the sun’s tracking across the sky and the
distance of these properties from the site, that there will not be any prolonged periods of
overshadowing on any of the days tested. On the summer solstice, no overshadowing occurs at any
of the properties on the Islington housing estate. The issue was not considered further in the
Environmental Statement.
I am satisfied that the application is acceptable with regards to design in so far as the parameters
developed within the Design Code relate to the building plots, the proposed public realm areas,
principles for new development and fixed design requirements. The proposed building heights
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
would be acceptable in terms of the impact of overshadowing to existing residential properties, to
the canal and to buildings and public spaces within the site. The proposed Public Realm Landscape
Materials Palette is considered to set an appropriately high standard of quality and design for the
public realm areas.
Access and Parking
Policy A2 requires development proposals to make adequate provision for safe and convenient
access by the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists through the protection and improvement of key
routes.
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
Policy T9 of RSS relates to demand management. It also covers the issue of car parking standards
and states that standards should be more restrictive in urban areas to reflect local characteristics,
such as higher levels of public transport and higher development density.
Policy RT6 of Draft RSS states that local authorities should develop a coordinated approach to
parking provision as part of an all-embracing strategy to manage travel demand. Plans and
strategies should incorporate maximum parking standards (parking for disabled people being the
only situation where minimum standards will be applicable); manage car use by implementing
workplace, education and personal travel plans which should be developed alongside public
transport, cycling and pedestrian network improvements; and provide dedicated and secure parking
facilities for cycles and two wheel motorised vehicles.
The proposed access points into the site and individual plots have been worked up in consultation
with highway officers. Some highway works have been completed under Phase 1 of a previously
approved s278 scheme. These relate to improvements on Oldfield Road and Middlewood Street
and include the formation of a new cycle path. The proposed access points to the site are acceptable
in terms of highway safety.
The scheme proposes to provide 51% car parking overall in relation to Regional Spatial Strategy
and UDP standards. It would provide 2490 spaces in total located within the plots themselves,
within a multi-storey car parking comprising 250 spaces and within 120 surface level spaces for
overspill and visitors. The reduction in car parking provision is based on the accessible location of
the site and as a means of encouraging alternative modes of travel to the private car.
It is considered that the level of car parking provision would be acceptable, however, that in order
to encourage the use of non-car based modes of travel that individual travel plans for each
development are produced in accordance with the framework travel plan that has been submitted.
GMPTE have some concerns about the site’s accessibility to bus services as along Oldfield Road,
services are mostly restricted to weekends and evenings only, and the nearest Metroshuttle stop on
New Quay Street is in excess of 600m away. They, together with Network Rail, welcome the
intentions of the developer to improve linkages to Salford Central Station, which at present, is
difficult to access by foot. It is considered appropriate, particularly in view of the reduced level car
parking to be provided on the site, to require a proportion of s106 planning obligation contributions
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
to fund improvements to pedestrian linkages to Salford Central Station and to improving bus
services as a means of enhancing the accessibility of the site.
There are a number of areas of highway that require to be stopped up to enable the development of
some of the 13 plots - a public footpath through plots F, G and H, land used as car parking and areas
of redundant highway. There has been no objection from the Ramblers Association to the
application. Alternative pedestrian routes to the public footpath that offer an equally convenient
means of access across the site would be provided as part of the application or the restoration of the
canal towpath and are shown on the Design Code and site layout drawing.
It is not envisaged that the Council will adopt any of the internal access roads. Nevertheless, the
safety of the proposed internal access roads has been assessed and is considered to safely and
adequately cater for the proposed accesses to the individual plots. Each carriageway would be 7.3
metres wide and would incorporate two way working of traffic. A number of indicative access
points into each plot have been shown on the site layout drawing and these are considered to be
acceptable. The detailed design of the internal road layout will not been carried out until the
reserved matters applications for each plot have been submitted but it is envisaged that many areas
will be shared surface in a ‘homezone’ type arrangement with pedestrian priority and this will be
reflected in the proposed surfacing materials.
Impact on the Environment
The applicant has submitted an Environmental Statement (ES) as the proposed development has
been determined to constitute Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development. The impact
of the proposals on different aspects of the environment and their assessment in the ES are
discussed in turn below.
Transport
The section of the ES on Transport was based on a Traffic Assessment also submitted with the
application. The assumptions on which traffic impact was assessed included parking provision to
be provided at 51% of the UDP and RSS parking standards and as a result, that traffic generation in
both the AM and PM peaks will reduce by 50% compared to other developments reviewed in the
TRICS database.
The impact on the highway network during the construction period has been assessed as likely to be
‘minor adverse’ due to temporary road closures and the movement of HGVs, for example.
The transport modelling undertaken on the network predicts that the adjacent network can largely
accommodate the additional development traffic up until 2010. In 2015, the additional trips have
‘minor adverse’ impact at the junction of Hampson Street/Trinity Way and Middlewood
Street/Oldfield Road/Liverpool Street and a ‘moderate adverse impact’ at the Middlewood
Street/East Ordsall Lane/Ordsall Lane/Hampson Street and Wilburn Street/Ordsall Lane/Regent
Road junctions. A ‘minor beneficial’ impact on public transport is expected as a result of
improvements to bus stops on Oldfield Road but more significant benefits would result if the
Metroshuttle3 service is routed through the site. A ‘moderate beneficial’ impact is expected on
pedestrians and cyclists through the increased provision of walking routes and a cycle lane (already
provided as part of previous s278).
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
A range of mitigation measures is proposed to the existing highway for cyclists and pedestrians
(new crossings, surfacing, road marking, signage and lighting) together with improvements to
existing bus stops. New signalised junctions are proposed at Middlewood Street/East Ordsall
Lane/Ordsall Lane/Hampson Street and at the new access into ManCentral on East Ordsall Lane.
Policy A1 requires planning applications for developments which would give rise to significant
transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport assessment
and, where appropriate, a travel plan.
Policy A2 requires development proposals to make adequate provision for safe and convenient
access by the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists through the protection and improvement of key
routes.
Policy A5 states that development of bus corridors will be permitted where they are consistent with
regeneration objectives and policies in the UDP.
Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would compromise highway
safety by virtue of traffic generation and access.
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
Policy T9 of RSS relates to demand management. It also covers the issue of car parking standards
and states that standards should be more restrictive in urban areas to reflect local characteristics,
such as higher levels of public transport and higher development density.
Policy RT2 of Draft RSS states that the Highways Agency and local highway authorities should
make best use of existing infrastructure through the development of Route Management Plans for
all routes in the Regional Highway Network. In the Manchester City Region, network and demand
management measures should be used to improve journey time reliability on the M6, M56, M60
and M62 motorways. Plans and strategies for managing and maintaining the highway network
should give a high priority to improving transport safety and security. In the regional centres and
regional towns and cities, local authorities should develop an integrated approach to managing
travel demand which focuses on the need to reduce the proportion of car borne commuting during
peak periods.
Policy RT6 of Draft RSS states that local authorities should develop a coordinated approach to
parking provision as part of an all-embracing strategy to manage travel demand. Plans and
strategies should incorporate maximum parking standards (parking for disabled people being the
only situation where minimum standards will be applicable); manage car use by implementing
workplace, education and personal travel plans which should be developed alongside public
transport, cycling and pedestrian network improvements; and provide dedicated and secure parking
facilities for cycles and two wheel motorised vehicles;
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport, outlines the need to promote more sustainable
transport choices, promote accessibility to jobs, shopping and leisure facilities and services by
public transport, walking and cycling and reducing the need to travel, especially by car. It sets out
maximum car parking standards that will assist in the promotion off sustainable transport choices.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The guidance highlights the importance of walking and cycling as substitutes for short car trips. It
also sets out the requirements for travel plans to help in the delivery of sustainable transport
objectives, including reductions in car usage, reduced traffic speeds and more environmentally
friendly delivery services.
I am satisfied that a reduced level of car parking provision would be acceptable on this site
providing that improvements are made to public transport services and pedestrian routes to Salford
Central Station and that a Travel Plan is provided for each plot. The provision of 51% car parking
provision across the site would reduce the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the
development, however, some further improvements are required and the mitigation measures
described within the ES and Transport Assessment would be acceptable.
The mitigation works will be achieved via Phase 3 and 4 of the s278 (as proposed to be authorised
under this application) and will be linked to the completion of specific plots or the completion of
the canal. It should be noted that a significant amount of works have been carried out by the
applicant under Phase 1 and 2 of an existing s278 scheme. These relate to improvement on part of
Oldfield Road and Middlewood Street and have included improvements to the junction, to
pedestrian crossing facilities and the provision of a cycle lane. An Environmental Management
Plan will be required as a planning condition and includes a requirement for mitigating the impacts
of traffic creation during the construction period.
I am satisfied that the proposed planning conditions and improvements sought through legal
agreements, will ensure that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the highway
network as a result of the proposed development.
Noise and Vibration
The ES includes a noise assessment based existing sources of noise from road and railway traffic
and includes vibration from train movements on the adjacent railway lines. The potential effects
during construction have been assessed and there is likely to be impact on the occupants of the
Fusion scheme at Middlewood Street during the construction of Plot G. As the developer of both
the Fusion scheme and Plot G is George Wimpey, they will no doubt seek to minimise effects for
commercial reasons. The existing residential properties on the Islington Street are not considered
to be adversely affected. The impact of vibration on the completed Manchester Bolton Bury canal
has been considered. With regard to the completed development, it is anticipated that there will be
some increase in noise levels associated with traffic growth on existing roads. The development
itself is likely to generate additional noise from road traffic within the site and along the northern
section of East Ordsall Lane. The impact on existing residents adjacent to this stretch of road is
considered to be ‘minor adverse’.
The ES proposes a number of mitigation measures both during the construction period and in
relation to the completed development. As a result, it concludes that there would be ‘negligible’ or
‘minor adverse’ impacts from noise and vibration.
Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute towards
a significant increase in pollution by reason of noise or vibration will not be permitted unless they
include mitigation measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise provides advice on how the planning
system can be used to minimise the adverse impact of noise without placing unreasonable
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
restrictions on development. It outlines some of the main considerations that local planning
authorities should take into account when determining planning applications for development that
will either generate noise or be exposed to existing noise sources. For new developments that
would introduce noise into an area, PPG24 confirms that it is appropriate to continue using
previously established assessment routines.
In order to deal with some of the impacts highlighted above, the Strategic Director for
Environmental Services has recommended that a number of conditions be attached to the
permission in line with the proposed mitigation measures. These include: the submission of
schemes detailing acoustic and ventilation protection measures necessary to protect residential
elements of the development from external noise sources and the restriction of noise from plant and
equipment on site.
The Environmental Management Plan will deal with issues of noise and vibration during
construction. I have also attached conditions to control the impact on vibration from piling works
on the railway lines and the completed Manchester Bolton Bury canal. I therefore consider that,
subject to compliance with these conditions, the application accords with Policy EN17.
Air Quality
An air quality assessment is included within the ES. It is based on an assessment of the
development on local air quality arising from demolition and construction activities, as well as
from road traffic and service plant arising from the completed development. The demolition and
construction effects of the development would be related to dust emissions and exhaust emissions
from demolition and construction plant and vehicles. The effects of the completed development
would result from traffic associated with the development and operational plant and ventilation
systems.
The ES concludes that a range of measures is required to prevent unacceptable impacts during the
construction stage. The completed development will result in very small increases in nitrogen
dioxide and particulate matter but not to a significant extent. In addition, the pollutant
concentrations predicted at existing and sensitive location are below the current and provisional air
quality objectives in all years modelled. The overall impact is considered to be ‘negligible’.
Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute towards
a significant increase in pollution to the air (including dust pollution) will not be permitted unless
they include mitigation measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development.
Policy EQ2 of RSS states that development and local transport plans should include air quality
criteria and proposals to reduce or reverse the growth in road traffic and encourage greater use of
public transport, walking and cycling and be linked to air quality action plans.
Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control, states that the planning system
seeks to complement the suite of wider pollution controls. It seeks to advise on any consideration of
the quality of land, air, water and potential impacts arising from development, with the aim of
ensuring that new development which may give rise to pollution either directly or indirectly will
not, as far as possible, affect other uses and developments.
The site lies within an Air Quality Management Area for nitrogen dioxide. The Strategic Director
of Environmental Services has assessed the air quality assessment and agrees that the increases in
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
concentrations of both pollutants are small and well below the criteria that could be classed as
significant. As the site is in an air quality management area, the introduction of new pollution
sources from traffic and buildings will lead to small increases in the pollution levels. Roadside sites
are likely to be worst affected. DEFRA require an estimate of population exposure to exceedance
of the standard. The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has carried out an assessment
that indicates slightly higher pollution levels than predicted by the applicant. With over 1700
apartments there is likely to be an increase in this indicator. He recommends that monitoring be
provided to estimate the actual levels of pollution during the development of the site and beyond.
There is no objection to the application on air quality grounds provided: parking restrictions around
the site are provided, building lines comply with the submitted site layout drawing, building design
meets BREEAM standard of good to excellent, an Environmental Management Plan is adopted and
funding for air monitoring diffusion tube is provided.
In order to achieve mitigation of air quality impacts, I recommend planning conditions to secure an
Environmental Management Plan during the construction stage, that buildings must achieve
BREEAM ‘very good’ rating, limits to amount of parking associated with each plot, and
compliance with the building lines set out in the site layout drawing.
In light of the above comments, and subject to compliance with the conditions outlined above, I am
satisfied that, in accordance with Policy EN17, any impacts on air quality as a result of the proposed
development would not be unacceptably detrimental.
Archaeology
The applicants have undertaken a desk based study and site walkover to check the condition of
known or hitherto unrecorded heritage and also the topography and current land use at the site. It
concluded that there is limited potential for remains of earlier than post-medieval date to survive
within the site as a result of its redevelopment. Any remains that do survive are likely to be
truncated and highly fragmentary. As such they would not rate as of more than local importance.
There is some potential for remains of post-medieval industrial and residential activity to survive
within the site, although these are limited to below ground remains. These would not rate as of
greater than local importance. There are no historic buildings or designated heritage, which could
be affected by redevelopment.
Policy CH5 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have an
unacceptable impact on an ancient monument, or site or feature of archaeological importance, or its
setting.
Policy ER3 of RSS requires local planning authorities to identify, protect, conserve and, where
appropriate, enhance, the built heritage of the Region in their plans, policies and proposals.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology and Planning, sets out the Government’s policy
on archaeological remains on land and how they should be preserved or recorded. It presumes in
favour of preservation, especially where nationally important remains exist. However, it
acknowledges that cases involving remains of lesser importance will not always be so clear cut. It
advises that local planning authorities will need to weigh the relative importance of archaeology
against the need for the proposed development.
I have not received any objections from the GMAU in respect of the applicants’ proposals. The
GMAU has confirmed that it is satisfied with the applicants’ provisional recommendations for
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
mitigation and requests that archaeological interests within the site be secured through planning
conditions requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological work and for an
interpretation board, or similar, to be provided explaining the industrial heritage of the canal.
Subject to compliance with these conditions I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable
detrimental impacts on archaeology, and consider that the proposal complies with the above
policies.
Townscape and Visual Assessment
The applicants have followed the good practice guidelines issues jointly by the Institute of
Environmental Assessment and the Landscape Institute in assessing the landscape and visual
impacts of the proposal. Existing baseline conditions have been established by desktop analysis,
field study, urban design notes and photography. The assessment is based on the maximum
building footprints and building heights as set out in the EIA parameters plan. It should be noted
that the maximum floorspace on each plot means that it would not be possible to construct the
buildings to fill the maximum spatial zone and therefore, the assessment of the townscape and
visual impacts bases on maximum building footprints and heights, represents a worst case scenario.
A total of eight principle views were selected to illustrate those areas where the greatest visual
impact is predicted. The sensitive receptors were identified as the occupants of the Fusion scheme,
residents of the Islington housing estate, occupants of progressively completed plots within the
development and users of the surrounding streets.
The assessment concludes that, during construction, there are likely to be ‘moderate adverse’
impacts for occupants of early occupied plots within the development and ‘minor adverse’ impacts
on the residents of the Islington housing estate. These impacts would result from tower cranes,
hoarding and lighting for the works. The completed development is predicted to have ‘substantial
beneficial’ effect on the townscape character of the site and ‘moderate beneficial’ effect on the
existing character of the wider area as a whole. The visual impact of the proposals on the existing
site and its surrounds is predicted to be ‘moderate substantial’ beneficial but ‘minor adverse’ from
the Islington housing estate. The impact on these residents would result primarily from the impact
of development on plots D and E at a maximum height of 55m (13 storeys) and 135m (32 storeys)
respectively.
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality
and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public space,
that public space must be designed to, have a clear role and purpose, responding to established or
proposed local economic, social, cultural and environmental needs, reflect and enhance the
character and identity of the area, form an integral part of, and provide an appropriate setting for,
surrounding developments be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit, be of an appropriate
scale, connect to established pedestrian routes and other public spaces and minimise, and make
provision for, maintenance requirements.
Policy DES4 outlines that development, which adjoins public space, shall be design to have a
strong and positive relationship with that space.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Policy DES5 outlines a number of circumstances where tall buildings will be permitted, including:
where the scale of the development is appropriate to its location; the location is highly accessible by
public transport, walking and cycling; the buildings would positively relate to and interact with the
public realm; the buildings would be of the highest quality, would make a positive addition to the
skyline and would not detract from important views; there would be no unacceptable
overshadowing or overlooking; there would be no unacceptable impact on microclimate,
telecommunications activity, aviation safety, and the development would be consistent with other
UDP policies.
Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and soft
landscaping provision. Where landscaping is required as part of a development, it must be of a high
quality, reflect and enhance the character of the area, not detract from safety and security, form an
integral part of the development, be easily maintained, respect adjacent land uses and wherever
possible make provision for the creation of new wildlife habitats.
Policy DES10 development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime,
anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime.
Policy UR10 of RSS seeks to ensure that strategies are in place for the design, management,
maintenance and enhancement of public realm and urban greenspace. It outlines a number of
priorities, including enhancing the setting of residential neighbourhoods, increasing the overall
stock of urban trees and improving accessibility and community safety.
The Islington housing estate comprises two storey houses, three storey flats and two 15 storey
tower blocks. The existing towers have an estimated height of 54 metres. Views from the tower
blocks towards the site are from west or east facing habitable rooms giving an oblique view towards
the site.
The Design Code sets out a number of Fixed Design Requirements for any future development on
the site. One requirement is a limit on both the overall height and number of storeys that would be
allowed on each plot. The maximum height for plot D would be of a similar height as the existing
tower blocks. The nearest boundary of plot D would be 90 metres from the south face of the nearest
tower block, Arthur Millwood Court, and 115 metres from the nearest low rise housing. The space
between plot D and the low rise housing would be four to five times further away than the existing
tower blocks are to the same housing. This relationship is considered to be acceptable. The
maximum height for plot E is considerably taller at 135 metres. It would be 80 metres from the
south face of Arthur Millwood Court and 96 metres from the nearest low rise housing. I agree that
the impact of this plot is likely to be ‘moderate adverse’, as based on the maximum spatial zone of
development. As with all plots on the site, the restrictions on floorspace mean that the maximum
spatial zone could not be built out and the actual built development could potentially take a number
of different forms. On plot E, this might be a tall slender tower or a lower height but wider
building. These two options are assessed in the ES and would reduce the impact on the Islington
housing estate. Further, this level of development is appropriate within the site’s urban location
and high density development of the site is supported by development plan policy.
The other townscape and visual impacts of the scheme would be more beneficial. Lower height
buildings are proposed to Middlewood Street and alongside the reconstructed canal. The other two
landmark buildings are located at a sufficient distance away from existing residential properties to
avoid a detrimental impact
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Given the nature of the proposed development, it is inevitable that there would be some impact on
townscape and visual aspects of the existing environment. I am satisfied that these impacts would
be positive and that the development would be an improvement to the overall area. I consider it
necessary to attach conditions for each plot requiring the development to be undertaken in
accordance with the Design Code and a number of fixed design requirements including the
maximum gross development space, number of storeys and building heights in order to ensure that
there would be no additional or negative impacts as a result of the proposal. Subject to compliance
with this condition, I have no objections to the application in this regard. The final appearance,
scale and layout of development on each plot would be assessed under reserved matters
applications.
Ground Conditions
The applicant has carried out a preliminary geo-technical site investigation together with a
geo-technical and geo-environmental report. The reports included a site specific risk assessment
and a preliminary conceptual model that identified potential contaminant sources, pathways and
receptors. The investigations revealed that remedial measures would be necessary to prevent an
unacceptable risk to the health of future occupiers and users of the site.
Policy EN14 states that states that development involving reclamation, remediation, or
improvement of derelict, underused or neglected land should include measures to ensure that
physical risks to the public are reduced to acceptable levels, site conditions appropriate to the
proposed use of the land are created, contamination or the land is addressed, in accordance with
Policy EN16 and, where appropriate, the existing ecological value of the site is protected or
enhanced.
Policy EN16 states that development proposals on sites known or thought to be contaminated will
require the submission of a site assessment as part of any planning application, identifying the
nature and extent of the contamination involved, the risk it poses to future users/occupiers of the
site, and the practical remedial measures proposed to deal with the contamination.
Policy EN17 states that development proposals that would be likely to cause or contribute towards
a significant increase in pollution to the air (including dust pollution), water or soil, or by reason of
noise, odour, artificial light or vibration, will not be permitted unless they include mitigation
measures commensurate with the scale and impact of the development.
EM2 states that plans, strategies, proposals and schemes should encourage the adoption of
sustainable remediation technologies. Where soft end uses (including green infrastructure, natural
habitat or landscape creation) are to be provided on previously developed sites, appropriate
remediation technologies should be considered which reduce or render harmless any contamination
that may be present.
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services has advised that a detailed site investigation of
each plot should be carried out prior to commencement of development. I am therefore satisfied
that, subject to compliance with this condition, there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact
as a result of the existing ground conditions and I consider that the application accords with the
above policies.
Water Resources
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The applicant has carried out a desk based review of information relating to the site, of existing
report and has prepared a proposed storm water sewerage network to simulate the performance for
a 1 in 2 year and 1 in 100 year storm event. The applicants propose, with the agreement of United
Utilities, that the development areas to the north of the Manchester Bolton Bury canal (plots B, C,
D, E, K, L and M) maintain their existing connections to the combined sewer in East Ordsall Lane
for surface water drainage. The remaining plots would discharge surface water to the existing,
large diameter storm water sewer in Hampson Street. New storm water sewers are proposed in
Middlewood Street and Hampson Street. The impact of the development on the surface water
drainage network is considered to be negligible. A Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) is
not considered necessary because the site has been granted an unrestricted sewer outfall, which
very quickly arrives at a main river. A reduction in the discharge rate could be achieved by the use
of SUDS but the ES states this would only be of small benefit, as the discharge rate to the River
Irwell is not considered to be a significant issue.
The ES considers flood risk and concludes that as the lowest part of the site, at 27.50 metres AOD,
is 2.2 metres above the modelled 1:100 year (plus 20%) flood level at Princes Bridge. The site is
not considered at risk from a 1:1000 year flood risk but the site is above this level too. The ES
states that there is potential for overland flooding due to an increase in the impermeable surfaces on
the site and that this could be overcome by a planning condition to ensure each plot is adequately
drained into the main storm sewers. Overall the ES concludes that the development will have a
negligible impact on the pollution of surface water, drainage and flooding.
I have not received any objections from the Environment Agency in respect of water resources.
They have recommended that conditions be attached requiring surface water drainage to be passed
through an oil interceptor prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or
soakaway system and the submission of a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters. The
condition requiring the submission of an EMP will also assist in ensuring that any impacts on water
quality as a result of the proposed development are minimised. I have attached a condition
requiring a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters for that plot to be approved. Subject
to these conditions, I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on water
resources, and I consider that the application accords with Policy EN18.
Socio Economics
The ES assesses the potential effect of the development on employment, population, local spending
and local services. It suggests that the development could be expected to create 440 permanent full
time jobs from construction. The number of jobs from the completed development could be a
maximum of 5,380 jobs. The development could be expected to accommodate between 3,315 and
3.630 people and would result in a maximum of £35 million a year in household spending. The
anticipated local spending by workers on the site could be £7.5 million a year. The likely impact on
education and health services is anticipated to be not significant.
This section of the ES highlights the numerous benefits, which would be secured as a result of the
proposed development, and I am satisfied with the applicants’ conclusions. I consider that the
proposal would result in significant beneficial socio-economic impacts, and I therefore have no
objections to the proposal in this regard.
Wind
The ES has assessed the impact of the development on the local microclimate around the proposed
buildings. In particular, it considers its potential effects on wind flows and on pedestrian comfort
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
and safety around the base of buildings. It is based on a desk based wind assessment and report. It
quantifies the effects in terms of the Lawson Comfort Criteria. It concludes that the buildings to the
north of the canal will be largely sheltered from the prevailing southerly winds by buildings to the
south of the canal. The buildings in the northern part of the site may, however, be affected by the
less frequent winds from the north. It also concludes that the southern part of the site is exposed to
the prevailing southerly winds. An assessment of the suggested building forms shown in the
Design Code concludes that solutions are available to mitigate against any adverse wind impacts
generated by the general positioning and heights of buildings, through appropriate building design,
landscaping and some additional screening.
Given that the precise heights and siting of buildings across the site is not known at this stage, and
that the applicants are not seeking approval for such details, I consider it necessary to attach a
condition requiring the submission of further detailed wind assessments, including mitigation
measures where necessary, with each application for the approval of reserved matters. This will
ensure that the impact of the proposal on the wind environment can be satisfactorily considered
when the details of each phase are known and that mitigation measures can be appropriately
designed and implemented. Subject to compliance with this condition, I have no objections to the
application in this regard.
Cumulative Impacts
In line with the requirements of EIA regulations, an assessment has been made of the potential
cumulative impacts of the development. There are two types: Type 1 impacts – combined effects of
individual impacts from one development on a particular receptor and Type 2 impacts – impacts
from several developments that when considered together could result in a significant cumulative
impact.
The ES considers Type 1 impacts only during the construction stage and identifies that the majority
of cumulative impacts arise from a combination of dust, noise and vibration, construction traffic
and visual impacts. These are considered to be ‘minor adverse’.
The consideration of Type 2 impacts includes assessment of this development with the construction
of the Fusion scheme and the construction of the canal. Taking these impacts together there is
likely to be some adverse traffic, air quality and noise impact during the construction stage. Other
impacts will be of a negligible or minor adverse nature or of benefit. Cumulative transport impacts
will have a minor adverse and/or moderate adverse impact at certain locations in 2015. However, I
have commented above on the proposed planning conditions and improvements sought through
legal agreements to address transport impacts in the vicinity of the site.
Ecology
An ecological walkover was undertaken by the applicant to assess the main habitats within the site
and to identify any actual or potential protected or notable species/habitat constraints that may exist
within the site. The level of survey is considered to be a Sub-Phase 1 survey. It concluded that the
site itself is not subject to any statutory or non-statutory designations, and that any designated sites
in the surrounding area are too far away to be affected. It is does not contain any notable habitat
with mainly ruderal vegetation present. Japanese Knotweed was identified which should be treated
and a suitable condition is proposed. The potential for providing foraging habitat for amphibian
and reptile species was considered to be low, the potential for bats to be present was limited, it
contains little suitable habitat for birds and in conclusion, there are unlikely to be any significant
adverse ecological related impacts. The issue was scoped out of the ES.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Policy EN10 states that development which would be likely to have an adverse impact on legally
protected species will only be permitted where mitigation measures are put in place to maintain the
population level of the species at a favourable conservation status within its natural range.
Policy ER5 of RSS requires local planning authorities to afford the strongest level of protection to
statutorily protected species in their plans, policies and proposals.
Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, requires local planning
authorities to not only protect biodiversity but also, wherever possible, to actively enhance it.
Particular advice is provided in respect of networks of natural habitats, which are recognised as
valuable resources which should be maintained to avoid fragmentation and subsequent isolation of
natural habitats, as well as biodiversity within developments, where local planning authorities
should encourage and maximise opportunities for building in beneficial biodiversity features as
part of good design.
In view of the above, and in light of the acceptance of the ecology assessment by the GMEU, I am
satisfied that the proposal would comply with the above policies. GMEU note that the issue of
ground nesting birds has not been covered by the ES, however, as much of the site has been
disturbed by the site compound for the Fusion scheme and highway improvement works and as no
such condition was attached to the consent for the reinstatement of the Manchester Bolton Bury
canal, I do not consider that the issue need be considered further.
Other Issues
1. Legal Agreements
Policy H8 states that planning permission will only be granted for housing development where
adequate provision is made for formal and informal open space and its maintenance over a 20-year
period.
Policy R2 seeks to ensure that all households are within set distances of a range of facilities, and
that there is at least 0.73ha of high quality managed sports pitches per 1,000 population, 0.25ha of
equipped children’s playspace per 1,000 population, and adequate amenity open space.
The Chapel Street Development Control note sets out formulas for contributions to environmental
improvements within the Chapel Street Regeneration Area such as highways, traffic management
and safety, pedestrian facilities, cycling, public transport, car parking, environmental
improvements, public art, environmental maintenance, archaeological works, community facilities,
and jobs and training. The formulas require the payment of £1000 per residential unit, £500 per
hotel bedroom and £10 per square metre of office development.
The Draft Planning Obligations SPD can only be afforded little weight in the determination of
planning applications, given the number of objections received. It does however provide an
indication of the direction of the Council’s policies on planning obligations and it is therefore
considered necessary to discuss its implications in relation to this application. The draft SPD
requires applicants to make financial contributions towards a number of areas, including public
open space, public realm, infrastructure and heritage, affordable housing, climate change and
training programmes for construction workers. Paragraph 4.16 of the document states that the need
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
for a planning obligation must be weighed together with all other material planning considerations,
including any positive benefits of the development, in determining whether planning permission
should be granted. It states that in exceptional circumstances, the Council may consider that the
benefits from a development outweigh the need for mitigation and may waive or reduce
contributions.
In relation to open space, the Draft SPD identifies the financial contribution that the Council will
seek if a commuted sum is to be paid rather than actual provision being made by the developer, and
this equates to £540 per bed space.
The previous outline consent required a contribution, based on a formula of £750 per residential
unit and £7.50 per square metre of office space, and capped at a limit of £1,442,420. Based on
current standards, the scheme would require a contribution of £5,188,710. It is recognised,
however, that there is an extant planning permission in place and it would be reasonable to
recognise the amount of contribution previously agreed together with an appropriate sum (based on
current formula) for the greater number of residential units and greater amount of office space now
proposed. This would result in a contribution of £2,451,897.
The applicant has already committed to make a contribution directly to British Waterways of £1.1
million towards the reinstatement and renovation of the canal phased over a five year period and
will contribute £30,000 per annum over the next 100 years towards the maintenance of the canal. In
recognition of these contributions, it is considered reasonable to discount £500,000 from the overall
s106 contribution. The overall s106 contribution proposed is thus £1,951,897.
The payment will provide for a repayment of £1 million to the Council for the advance funding of
the canal that it undertook on behalf of Valley and Vale and for a further sum of £50,000 towards
increased canal restoration costs. The remaining amount - £901,897 – would provide a contribution
to environmental improvements outside the site, improvements to pedestrian routes to Salford
Central Station and public transport, public art, air quality monitoring, and towards enhanced
landscaping of the public realm within the site. The applicant would carry out some works and a
financial contribution would be provided to achieve other improvements.
In addition, the planning obligation would ensure:
ii. The formation of a management company with responsibility for the maintenance of the
public realm areas that lie outside the plot boundaries
iii. The provision of a travel plan for each plot
iv. That in the event that the Manchester Bolton Bury canal is not constructed and the canal
land reverts back to the applicant, the land be kept free from development, landscaped and
retained as part of the public realm to be managed by the management company
A further s278 agreement (Phase 3 and 4) is required to ensure highway improvements on East
Ordsall Lane are undertaken. These would involve the provision of a traffic light junction and
toucan crossing on East Ordsall.
2. Mitigation against impacts of uses within the site
The Strategic Director for Environmental Services has commented that the mix of uses proposed
within the site, the high density of development and the combination of sensitive and non-sensitive
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
uses could impact on the amenity of future residents of the site due to fumes and odours. He has
recommended that a condition be attached requiring details of fume extraction systems for all A3
and A4 uses within the site. I have therefore attached a condition requiring the submission of such
details with subsequent applications for the approval of reserved matters involving A3 and A4 uses.
The Strategic Director or Environmental Services has commented that illumination of the whole
site and any effects that may result will need to be considered in detail to ensure that such lighting is
adequate, appropriate and sensitively located, as inappropriate or badly aimed lighting can cause
severe reductions in amenity. I have therefore attached a condition requiring the submission of
schemes for external lighting relating to commercial uses.
3. Issues raised in the letters of representation
The objection from Granada raises a number of issues that I shall deal with in turn:
Land ownership – I am satisfied that the correct certificate and notices have been served.
Existing access rights to Granada land are maintained as part of the proposal including the
ManCentral access road.
Noise and pollution – there seems to be misunderstanding that a ‘transport hub’ is being
created at Station Boulevard
Flooding on their site – there is no objection from the Environment Agency regarding
flooding or United Utilities regarding surface water drainage
Raising concerns that the proposed layout and building heights contained in the Design
Code and proposed access arrangements would limit future development on their land –
access to plots B-E and to the Granada site is proposed from a new junction at the
ManCentral access road. I am satisfied in highway safety terms that the highway
arrangements (subject to detailed design) are satisfactory to allow access to the Granada
land. A 7.3 metre wide carriageway, with two way working, is proposed to the north of
Plot B, which runs to the proposed new signals at East Ordsall Lane. This would afford
Granada direct access to the adopted highway at East Ordsall Lane, which is no worse than
their existing access arrangements. The remaining length of the ManCentral access road
would remain within the Granada land and a new frontage would be created to the west,
facing plot B. Access to the south is constrained by the line of the canal and to the east by
the railway viaducts. The building plot areas show that, from the edge of the Granada land
there would be 40m to plot A, 10m to plot B, 32m to plot C, 21m to plot D and 23 m to plot
E. The Granada land lies to the south of the plot E and therefore would not be affected by
overshadowing. Plot A would not be likely to have a detrimental impact as it is located to
the south-west and would only affect the site during the late afternoon.
Maintenance of railway arches – this would not be affected by the development
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The proposals have been formulated in close consultation with representatives from the Council,
Urban Vision, the URC and other consultees. In particular, the control over future development
guided by the Design Code will result in a high quality mixed-use scheme, which would bring
about significant benefits for the surrounding area, Salford as a whole and the Regional Centre.
CONCLUSION
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The proposals represent an effective use of a previously developed site within the Regional Centre.
The application would assist in securing the regeneration of a major site within the Chapel Street
area and the achievement of a URC priority project. A broad mix of uses would be proposed within
the site and it is envisaged that this development would stimulate the redevelopment of other areas
within Chapel Street West. The mix of uses proposed is consistent with UDP policies MX1, S2,
ST11, and RSS policies EC8, DP1 and UR1. Such a mix would create a diverse and sustainable
development, which would be appropriate given the site’s location within the Regional Centre. The
Design Code and landscaping details would help to ensure that the design of the development
would be of a high quality, with significant investment in public realm, open space and
infrastructure. The scheme would provide complementary built development and public spaces
around the Manchester Bolton Bury Canal and would contribute to its implementation. A number
of off-site highway works would also be secured as part of this development. The likely predicted
impacts of the proposal on the environment have been assessed and I am satisfied that, subject to a
number of conditions, there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the environment as a
result of this application.
The amount of retail development is considered to be acceptable, however, as the proposal exceeds
the thresholds for cumulative retail development as set out in Town and Country Planning
(Shopping Development)(England and Wales)(No 2) Direction 1993, if Members are minded to
approve the application, it will have to referred to the Secretary of State for his decision as to
whether he wishes to intervene in the determination of this application. The Direction relates to
gross shopping floorspace of more than 2,500 square metres, which will exceed 20,000 square
metres when aggregated with gross shopping floorspace over a similar threshold within a 10 mile
radius. In this case, the gross shopping floorspace would be 6,320 square metres and when
combined with the approval for over 20,000 square metres at the recently approved Salford Reds
stadium, it would exceed the relevant threshold.
RECOMMENDATION:
(a) That the Secretary of State be advised that the Council is minded to grant planning permission
for the development proposals subject to the following heads of terms in a planning obligation and
the recommended planning conditions.
(b) That if the Secretary of State does not intervene in the application, that planning permission be
granted subject to the following planning conditions and that:
i.
The Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be authorised to enter into a legal
agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the
repayment of £1,000,000 to the Council for the advance funding of the canal; a financial
contribution of £50,000 towards increased canal restoration costs; and a financial
contribution of £901,897 to the implementation of environmental improvements outside
the site, improvements to pedestrian routes to Salford Central Station and public transport,
public art, air quality monitoring, and towards enhanced landscaping and public realm
within the site. Also, to ensure the formation of a management company to manage and
maintain the public realm, the submission of travel plans for each plot and the creation of
public realm should the canal not be constructed and the land revert back to the applicant.
The Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services shall be authorised to enter into a
legal agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to secure highway
improvements on East Ordsall Lane.
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
ii.
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;
iii.
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,
iv.
That authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the
aim and objectives of policies H8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan or the
aim and objectives of the Chapel Street Regeneration Project.
Conditions
1. Applications for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of
seven years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not
later than whichever is the later of the following dates:
- the expiration of seven years from the date of this permission; or
- the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of
approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
2. No development shall be started on any plot within the development until full details of the
following reserved matters, in respect of that plot within the development, have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
a) Appearance: including the aspects of a building or place within the development which
determine the visual impression of the building or place makes, including the external built
form of the development, its architecture, materials, decoration, lighting, colour and texture;
b) Scale: including the height, width and length of each building proposed within the
development in relation to its surroundings;
c) Layout: including the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces within the
development are provided, situated and orientated in relation to each other and to buildings and
spaces outside the development; and
d) Landscaping: including the treatment of land (other than buildings) for the purpose of
enhancing or protecting the amenities of the plot and the area in which it is situated and
includes screening by fences, walls or other means, the planting of trees, hedges, shrubs or
grass, the formation of banks, terraces or other earthworks, the laying out or provision of
gardens, courts or squares, water features, sculpture, or public art, and the provision of other
amenity features.
3. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the Site Layout Plan
shown on drawing number TDK205/203K.
4. The maximum amount of gross residential floorspace falling within Class C3 of the Use
Classes Order 1987 (as amended) within the site shall be 142,697 square metres in total to a
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
limit of 1,754 units, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
5. The gross floorspace of any use falling within Class A1 of the Use Classes Order 1987 (as
amended) shall not exceed 6,320 square metres, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority and the gross floorspace of any single Class A1 retail unit shall not
exceed 750 square metres, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. Any development on Plot A shall be designed having regard to the principles of the approved
Design Code (dated 05/06) produced by Valley and Vale Properties Ltd. The following fixed
design requirements shall apply:
- The approved uses shall be residential apartments and leisure/retail
- The maximum gross development sapce shall be 33,837 square metres
- The maximum number of residential apartments shall be limited to 332 units with a maximum
floorspace of 30,825 square metres
- The maximum retail/leisure floorspace shall be 3,012 square metres and shall be located on
the ground and/or first floor of the development
- The maximum number of car parking spaces shall be 298 spaces located in 2
basement/undercroft decks
- The maximum height of the buildings shall be 25 storeys (not higher than 98.5 metres)
- The plot area within the building line shall be a maximum of 3,273 square metres in
accordance with drawing no TDK205/203K
7. Any development on Plot B shall be designed having regard to the principles of the approved
Design Code (dated 05/06) produced by Valley and Vale Properties Ltd. The following fixed
design requirements shall apply:
- The approved uses shall be residential apartments and leisure/retail
- The maximum gross development sapce shall be 23,225 square metres
- The maximum number of residential apartments shall be limited to 220 units with a maximum
floorspace of 20,439 square metres
- The maximum retail/leisure floorspace shall be 2,786 square metres and shall be located on
the ground and/or first floor of the development
- The maximum number of car parking spaces shall be 206 spaces located in 2 basement floors
and 3 upper floors
- The maximum height of the buildings shall be 13 storeys (not higher than 49.5 metres)
- The plot area within the building line shall be a maximum of 2,497 square metres in
accordance with drawing no TDK205/203K
8. Any development on Plot C shall be designed having regard to the principles of the approved
Design Code (dated 05/06) produced by Valley and Vale Properties Ltd. The following fixed
design requirements shall apply:
- The approved uses shall be office accommodation only
- The maximum gross development sapce shall be 12,077 square metres
- The maximum number of car parking spaces shall be 130 spaces located in basement and
undercroft decks
- The maximum height of the buildings shall be 13 storeys (not higher than 55 metres)
- Active frontages shall be provided along the East Ordsall Lane and Station Boulevard
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
frontages
- The plot area within the building line shall be a maximum of 2,183 square metres in
accordance with drawing no TDK205/203K
9. Any development on Plot D shall be designed having regard to the principles of the approved
Design Code (dated 05/06) produced by Valley and Vale Properties Ltd. The following fixed
design requirements shall apply:
- The approved uses shall be office accommodation only
- The maximum gross development sapce shall be 11,148 square metres
- The maximum number of car parking spaces shall be 120 spaces located in basement and
undercroft decks
- The maximum height of the buildings shall be 13 storeys (not higher than 55 metres)
- Active frontages shall be provided along the Station Boulevard frontage
- The plot area within the building line shall be a maximum of 2,115 square metres in
accordance with drawing no TDK205/203K
10. Any development on Plot E shall be designed having regard to the principles of the approved
Design Code (dated 05/06) produced by Valley and Vale Properties Ltd. The following fixed
design requirements shall apply:
- The approved uses shall be office accommodation and leisure/retail uses
- The maximum gross development sapce shall be 40,692 square metres
- The maximum number of car parking spaces shall be 438 spaces located in basement and
undercroft decks and four upper floors of parking
- The maximum height of the buildings shall be 32 storeys (not higher than 135 metres)
- Active frontages shall be provided along the Station Boulevard frontage and the eastern
boundary with the existing railway arches
- The plot area within the building line shall be a maximum of 4,935 square metres in
accordance with drawing no TDK205/203K
11. Any development on Plot F shall be designed having regard to the principles of the approved
Design Code (dated 05/06) produced by Valley and Vale Properties Ltd. The following fixed
design requirements shall apply:
- The approved uses shall be residential apartments, hotel and leisure/retail uses
- The maximum gross development space shall be 18,100 square metres
- The maximum number of residential apartments shall be limited to 60 units with a maximum
floorspace of 5,574 square metres
- The maximum hotel/retail/leisure floorspace shall be 12,526 square metres and shall be
located on the ground floor of the development
- The maximum number of car parking spaces shall be 100 spaces at basement level with some
surface car parking accessed from Hampson Street Circus
- The maximum height of the buildings shall be 8 storeys (not higher than 31.5 metres)
- The plot area within the building line shall be a maximum of 2,903 square metres in
accordance with drawing no TDK205/203K
12. Any development on Plot G shall be designed having regard to the principles of the approved
Design Code (dated 05/06) produced by Valley and Vale Properties Ltd. The following fixed
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
design requirements shall apply:
- The approved uses shall be residential apartments and leisure/retail uses
- The maximum gross development sapce shall be 22,547 square metres
- The maximum number of residential apartments shall be limited to 346 units with a maximum
floorspace of 22,102 square metres
- The minimum retail/leisure floorspace shall be 445 square metres and shall be located on the
ground and/or first floor of the development fronting public realm
- The maximum number of car parking spaces shall be 179 spaces located at undercroft level
- The maximum height of the buildings shall be 10 storeys (not higher than 40 metres)
- The plot area within the building line shall be a maximum of 6,267 square metres in
accordance with drawing no TDK205/203K
13. Any development on Plot H shall be designed having regard to the principles of the approved
Design Code (dated 05/06) produced by Valley and Vale Properties Ltd. The following fixed
design requirements shall apply:
- The approved uses shall be residential apartments and leisure/retail uses
- The maximum gross development sapce shall be 14,706 square metres
- The maximum number of residential apartments shall be limited to 266 units with a maximum
floorspace of 14,473 square metres
- The minimum retail/leisure floorspace shall be 232 square metres and shall be located on the
ground and/or first floor of the development fronting public realm
- The maximum number of car parking spaces shall be 113 spaces located at
undercroft/basement level
- The maximum height of the buildings shall be 10 storeys (not higher than 40 metres)
- The plot area within the building line shall be a maximum of 3,896 square metres in
accordance with drawing no TDK205/203K
14. Any development on Plot I shall be designed having regard to the principles of the approved
Design Code (dated 05/06) produced by Valley and Vale Properties Ltd. The following fixed
design requirements shall apply:
- The approved uses shall be residential accommodation and leisure/retail uses
- The maximum gross development sapce shall be 20,048 square metres
- The maximum number of residential apartments shall be limited to 194 units with a maximum
floorspace of 18,044 square metres
- The maximum retail/leisure floorspace shall be 2,004 square metres and shall be located on
the ground and/or first floor of the development fronting public realm
- The maximum number of car parking spaces shall be 177 spaces located in 2 basement floors
and one first floor deck
- The maximum height of the buildings shall be 24 storeys (not higher than 95 metres)
- The plot area within the building line shall be a maximum of 4,147 square metres in
accordance with drawing no TDK205/203K
15. Any development on Plot J shall be designed having regard to the principles of the approved
Design Code (dated 05/06) produced by Valley and Vale Properties Ltd. The following fixed
design requirements shall apply:
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
- The approved uses shall be residential accommodation and leisure/retail uses
- The maximum gross development sapce shall be 18,194 square metres
- The maximum number of residential apartments shall be limited to 176 units with a maximum
floorspace of 16,376 square metres
- The maximum retail/leisure floorspace shall be 1,819 square metres and shall be located on
the ground of the development fronting the canal
- The maximum number of car parking spaces shall be 143 spaces located in the basement
- The maximum height of the buildings shall be 8 storeys (not higher than 31.5 metres)
- The plot area within the building line shall be a maximum of 3,632 square metres in
accordance with drawing no TDK205/203K
16. Any development on Plot K shall be designed having regard to the principles of the approved
Design Code (dated 05/06) produced by Valley and Vale Properties Ltd. The following fixed
design requirements shall apply:
- The approved uses shall be residential accommodation
- The maximum gross development sapce shall be 14,864 square metres
- The maximum number of residential apartments shall be limited to 160 units with a maximum
floorspace of 14,864 square metres
- The maximum number of car parking spaces shall be 128 spaces in basement and undercroft
- Active frontages shall be provided at ground floor level along the canal frontage and eastern
elevation fronting Plot M
- The maximum height of the buildings shall be 12 storeys (not higher than 44 metres)
- The plot area within the building line shall be a maximum of 2,145 square metres in
accordance with drawing no TDK205/203K
17. Any development on Plot L shall be designed having regard to the principles of the approved
Design Code (dated 05/06) produced by Valley and Vale Properties Ltd. The following fixed
design requirements shall apply:
- The approved uses shall be as a car park
- The maximum gross development sapce shall be nil
- The maximum number of car parking spaces shall be 250 spaces
- The maximum height of the buildings shall be 7 storeys (not higher than 44 metres)
- The plot area within the building line shall be a maximum of 1,546 square metres in
accordance with drawing no TDK205/203K
18. Any development on Plot M shall be designed having regard to the principles of the approved
Design Code (dated 05/06) produced by Valley and Vale Properties Ltd. The following fixed
design requirements shall apply:
- The approved uses shall be office accommodation and leisure/retail uses
- The maximum gross development sapce shall be 8,221 square metres
- The maximum commercial floorspace shall be 6,968 square metres and the maximum
retail/leisure floorspace shall be 1,254 square metres
- Active frontages shall be located on the ground floor of the developmetn adjoining public
realm
- The maximum number of car parking spaces shall be 88 spaces in undercroft and basement
- The maximum height of the buildings shall be 10 storeys (not higher than 44 metres)
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
- The plot area within the building line shall be a maximum of 1,388 square metres in
accordance with drawing no TDK205/203K
19. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, at least 50% of residential
apartments within each of plots A, B, F, G, H, I, J and K shall be greater than 57 square metres
gross in size.
20. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, at least 10% of residential
apartments within each of plots A, B, F, I, J and K shall comprise three bedroom units and at
least 5% of residential apartments within each of plots G and H shall comprise three bedroom
units.
21. Prior to the first occupation for residential purposes of either Plots G or H, schemes for the
remediation and marketing for commercial use (including a timetable for each scheme) of Plots
C, D and E shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and
commenced; and the approved remediation and marketing schemes shall then be completed in
accordance with the approved timetables.
22. The proposed multi-storey car park located at Plot L shall be constructed and available for use
prior to the occupation of buildings on Plots C, K and M whichever is occupied first.
23. Any application for the approval of reserved matters for any plot within the development
hereby approved shall be accompanied by a Design and Access Statement that shall set out the
design principles and concepts that have been applied to the proposals including the amount,
layout, scale, landscaping and appearance of the development. In addition, the design element
shall demonstrate how the proposals have regard to the approved Design Code in terms of the
context of the overall development. The access element shall explain how access arrangements
will ensure that all users will have an equal and convenient access to buildings and spaces
within the overall development and the public transport network.
24. Prior to the commencement of development on each plot, samples of all external facing and
roofing materials for that plot shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The development of that plot shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
25. Any application for the approval of reserved matters for any plot within the development
hereby approved shall include details outlining how the developer of that plot will seek to
achieve an Eco Homes or BREEAM for Offices "very good" rating. The development of that
plot shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
26. In respect of the areas adjoining the Manchester Bolton Bury canal shown coloured yellow on
drawing no TD296-23, to submit to the Local Planning Authority for approval a landscaping
scheme designed to complement the landscaping scheme approved by the Local Planning
Authority under condition 06 of planning permission 06/52343/FUL and a site investigation
report within two months of the date of completion of that approved scheme; and to implement
on those areas the landscaping scheme and remediation works so approved within the next
planting season following written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
The site investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
and ground gases on the area of canalside public realm 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 and safety of site
workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on
wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and property. The investigation
shall where appropriate include a risk assessment and an options appraisal including the
remedial strategy.
The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey.
The landscaping and surfacing of the canalside public realm shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved site investigation report including its risk assessment, options appraisal and
recommendations for implementation of the remedial strategy.
Prior to discharge of this condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local
Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works
were completed in accordance with the site investigation report agreed by the Local Planning
Authority.
27. None of the development to be built on each of the Plots A-M on Drawing no TD296-22
Revision C, shall be occupied until the immediately adjoining associated areas of Public Realm
as shown on that drawing to be provided with that plot have been completed to at least base
wearing course standard. Each of the areas of Public Realm shown shall be completed to a
standard agreed by the developer and the Local Planning Authority before the occupation of the
development to be built on the last plot immediately adjoining that area of Public Realm unless
development on the last plot immediately adjoining that area of Public Realm has not been
commenced within 18 months from the completion of the base wearing course (24 months in
respect of Plot J) in which case the area of Public Realm shall be completed within the next
planting season, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any
plants found damaged, dead or dying in the first five years are to be duly replaced and the
scheme thereafter retained.
28. Any application for the approval of reserved matters for any plot within the development
hereby approved shall be accompanied by details of:
a) Proposed seating, lighting structures, public art, water features, bollards, bins, cycle racks,
grilles, walls and other means of enclosure, and other associated street furniture or amenity
features;
b) Existing and proposed ground levels including spot heights and cross-sections;
c) Planting; and
d) Internal circulation routes and surface car parking
for the Public Realm areas to be provided with that plot as defined on Drawing no TD292-22
Revision C (save to the extent that details for any of these Public Realm areas have already
been approved in accordance with this condition). The details submitted for the Public Realm
Areas shall have regard to the agreed Public Realm Landscape Materials Palette prepared by
Valley and Vale Properties (11/06) or such replacement materials as may be agreed in writing
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
by the Local Planning Authority and shall be designed to be complementary to the Public
Realm details for any parts of the Public Realm already approved under this condition and
where the Public Realm fronts the Manchester Bolton Bury canal, it shall be designed to be
complementary to the materials approved by the Local Planning Authority for the towpath of
the canal under condition 06 of planning permission 06/52343/FUL. The details submitted for
the Public Realm Areas shall provide for public art works at the locations indicated on Drawing
no TD296-22 Revision C. The development of each plot and associated Public Realm areas
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
29. Any application for the approval of reserved matters for any plot within the development
hereby approved, shall include a landscape scheme for that plot. Such scheme shall include full
details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatement and
shall be carried out befoe the end of the first planting season following completion of
development and thereafter be maintained. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of
planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. This condition
relates to landscaping works for public realm and private amenity areas within the boundary of
each plot as defined by the site layout plan on Drawing no TDK205/203K.
30. Any application for the approval of reserved matters for any plot within the development
hereby approved, shall be accompanied by full details of the existing and proposed ground
levels within that plot. The development of each plot shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details.
31. No development within each plot shall be brought into use until the car parking spaces
approved for that plot, in accordance with the reserved matters application for that plot, have
been laid out and made available for use by visitors, residents and staff and shall be retained
thereafter.
32. Before each plot within the development is brought into use, no less than 5% of the total car
parking spaces approved for that plot, in accordance with the reserved matters application for
that plot, shall be provided as disabled car parking spaces and retained thereafter.
33. Before each plot within the development is brought into use, adequate Hackney carriage,
private hire vehicle and cycling parking facilities, in accordance with the Local Planning
Authority's cycle parking standards, to serve that plot shall be provided within the curtilage of
the plot to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and thereafter such
facilities shall be made available at all times when that plot is in use.
34. Prior to the occupation of any of the buildings on Plots A, F, G, H, I or J the following highway
works shall be completed:
- Introduction of Advanced Cycle stop lines at the junction of Middlewood Street/East Ordsall
Lane/Hampson Street on these three arms;
- Introduction of on carriageway/ cycle lanes on both sides of Hampson Street between East
Ordsall Lane and Trinity Way to complement existing infrastructure;
- Red/green men, tactile paving and refuge pedestrian facilities across Hampson Street, East
Ordsall Lane and Middlewood Street as part of a major junction improvement;
- Introduction of dedicated cycle lanes on both sides of East Ordsall Lane south of the bridge
over the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal on its approach to its junction with Middlewood
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Street; and
- The introduction of new signalised junction at Middlewood St/East Ordsall Lane/Hampson
St/Ordsall Lane.
35. Prior to occupation of any of the buildings on Plots C, D or E, or if earlier, within six months of
the completion of the Manchester, Bolton, Bury canal in respect of the first point below, the
following highway works shall be completed:
- The introduction of a Toucan crossing on East Ordsall Lane approximately 80m north of
Middlewood Street; and
- Introduction of dedicated cycle lanes on both sides of East Ordsall Lane north of the bridge
over the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal on its approach to its junction with the Man
Central access.
36. Prior to occupation of any of the buildings on Plots B, C, D or E the following highway works
shall be completed:
- The introduction of a new signalised junction at the new access into Plots B, C, D and E (Man
Central) onto East Ordsall Lane;
- Provision of new red/green men pedestrian facilities at the above new junction of Man
Central/East Ordsall Lane as part of a new traffic signal arrangement.
37. Prior to occupation of any of the buildings on Plots K, L or M the following highway works
shall be completed:
- The introduction of a new signalised junction at the new access into Plots K, L and M onto
East Ordsall Lane; and
- Provision of new red/green men pedestrian facilities at the above new junction with East
Ordsall Lane as part of a new traffic signal arrangement.
38. Prior to the commencement of development on plot I, details of the design of the proposed taxi
and access lay-by within the site adjoining Oldfield Road shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development on plot I shall not be brought into
use until the lay-by has been constructed in accordance with the approved details, and shall be
retained thereafter.
39. Any application for the approval of reserved matters for any plot within the development
hereby approved shall be accompanied by a site investigation report that relates to the plot and
the associated public realm area as defined on drawing number TD296-22 Revision C.
The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and
ground gases on that plot and associated public realm area (save to the extent that any public
realm area has already been investigated and/or developed in accordance with this condition)
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 and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services
and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems
and property. The investigation shall where appropriate include a risk assessment and an
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
options appraisal including the remedial strategy.
The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey.
The development of each plot and associated public realm area shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved site investigation report including its risk assessment, options
appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial strategy.
Prior to discharge of this condition, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local
Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works
were completed in accordance with the site investigation report agreed by the Local Planning
Authority.
40. Before commencement of development of each plot within the development, an Environmental
Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority in relation to that plot. This statement should address the effects of the development
during construction in terms of traffic creation, dust creation, noise creation, dirt off-site, visual
intrusion, pollution to/from ground conditions, water resources and impact on the reinstated
canal. The recommendations and remedial works contained within the statement shall be
implemented thereafter.
41. Prior to any Class A3 or A4 uses of the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended) being brought
into use full details of a fume extraction system to the cooking or/and food preparation areas for
that use shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority . The
scheme shall be designed to ensure that no odour or noise disturbance will result to local
residents. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first use of the units to which
they relate and shall be used at all times that the premises are used for cooking or preparing
food.
42. Any application for the approval of reserved matters (other than those only relating to
landscaping alone) shall be accompanied by an assessment of noise. Such assessments should
follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road network and
should also assess noise from non-residential uses within the site. The assessments shall
identify all noise attenuation and alternative ventilation measures to reduce the impact of noise
on the residential and commercial properties on site to achieve the requirements of
BS8233:1999 for internal noise levels, and shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the approved
noise attenuation and alternative ventilation measures shall be implemented prior to first
occupation of any of the residential or commercial units within the area of the site to which the
relevant application for the approval of reserved matters relates and shall be thereafter retained.
43. No development shall commence on each plot within the development hereby approved until
details for archaeological investigation on that plot have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved archaeological investigation scheme
shall be implemented prior to the commencement of development
44. Prior to the occupation of plots A, B, F, I, J or M (whichever is occupied the soonest) proposals
for an interpretation board or similar, to be located within the public realm areas associated
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
with these plots, explaining the canal related industrial heritage of the site shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented prior to the occupation of the first plot unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
45. Before commencement of development of each plot within the development, a scheme for the
disposal of foul and surface waters for that plot shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first
occupation of that plot. The scheme for the disposal of surface waters shall incorporate silt
traps where appropriate to minimise risks of contamination to surface or ground waters and the
reinstated Manchester, Bolton and Bury canal.
46. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, all surface water drainage from vehicle parking
areas shall be passed through an oil interceptor, designed to have a capacity compatible with
the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.
47. Before commencement of development of each plot within the development, a scheme for the
provision of fire hydrants serving that plot 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 that plot.
48. Before commencement of development of each plot within the development, a scheme
showing the provision of waste recycling and waste collection facilities to serve that plot shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved
scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any of the buildings within that plot,
unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
49. Any application for the approval of reserved matters for any plot within the development
hereby approved shall be accompanied by a 'Crime Prevention Plan' which shall examine all
aspects of site security including, the site car parking, pedestrian footways, entrances, internal
layout and external security measures for that plot and this shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development of each
plot. Development of that plot shall be carried out in accordance with the approved statement
and any approved site security measures shall be retained thereafter.
50. Any piling works within 10m of the operational railway lines surrounding the site to the north,
south and east boundaries or line of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal shall be subject to
a maximum vibration limit of 10mm/s. Prior to carrying out any piling works within 10m of the
operational railway lines or canal, a scheme for monitoring the level of vibration shall be
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
51. No development shall commence on plots F, G, or H, until the appropriate order for the closure
or diversion of the public right of way affected by the development of these plots has been
made.
52. Prior to the implementation of any reserved matters approval for the appearance of any
building for residential use that is implemented 10 years or more from the date of this
permission, a review of the air quality assessment comprised within Chapter 9 and Appendix E
of the Environmental Statement, prepared by Waterman Environmental dated May 2006,
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
against existing air quality standards at the time of submission and air quality monitoring data,
shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such a statement shall
provide full details of mitigation measures to address the air quality issues identified, and shall
be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved mitigation measures
identified in the assessment shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any of the
residential units within the area of the site to which the relevant application for the approval of
reserved matters relates, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
53. No development shall commence on each plot within the development hereby approved, until a
scheme detailing the method and timescales for the eradication and disposal of Japanese
Knotweed from that plot has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development of each plot shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
scheme.
54. No development shall commence until a construction phasing plan which will detail the
number of plots which may be consecutively constructed at any one time on the site has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The construction
phasing plan shall not provide for the plots to come forward in a pattern which results in a
higher level of cumulative construction work than the phasing assumed in Table 5.1 of the
Environmental Statement submitted with the application for this permission. Development
shall take place in accordance with the approved construction phasing plan or such amended
construction phasing plan as shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority within the
above constraints.
55. Fixed plant and services within the development shall be designed to comply with a maximum
limit of 45dBLAeq daytime (07:00-23.00) and 40dBLAeq night time (23:00-7:00) at the
facades of the closest habitable rooms to be constructed under this permission.
56. Details of the final surfacing and containment arrangements for all areas used for the storage,
handling, loading and unloading of fuels, oils, chemicals or effluents shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Storage areas outside buildings shall be
surrounded by bunds in accordance with Environment Agency pollution prevention guidance
notes and best practice design guidelines. Construction of all these areas shall be in accordance
with the approved details.
57. Any application for the approval of reserved matters shall be accompanied by a wind
assessment. Such assessment shall include details of the likely impacts of the development on
pedestrian level wind conditions and terrace and balcony level wind environments for the plot
to which the reserved matters application relates and associated areas of Public Realm shown
on Drawing Number TD296-22 Revision C. Such assessment shall also provide full details of
mitigation measures, along with timescales for the implementation of such measures. The
assessment shall be approved in writing prior to the commencement of development within the
area of the site to which the application for the approval of reserved matters relates, and the
mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timescale for
implementation.
58. No external lighting shall be provided for any commercial, retail or leisure units within the site
unless and until a scheme or schemes for external lighting have been submitted to and approved
by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved scheme shall be implemented.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
59. Prior to the commencement of development on any plot, studies shall be submitted to the Local
Planning Authority that:
a) Identify, before development on the relevant plot commences, the potential impact area in
which television reception is likely to be adversely affected by the development hereby
approved, and provide details of when in the construction process an impact on television
reception might occur;
b) Measure the existing television signal reception within the potential impact area identified in
a) above, before development on the relevant phase or unit of development commences, and
provide details of the results obtained;
c) Assess the impact of the development of the relevant plot of development on television
signal reception within the potential impact area identified in a) prior to first occupation of any
of the units within the relevant plot. Such assessment shall identify measures to maintain at
least the pre-existing level and quality of signal reception identified by the measurements
undertaken in accordance with b) above, and such measures shall be approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority prior to first occupation of any of the units within that plot. The
approved measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any of the units within the
relevant plot of development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Reason: To ensure satisfactory development of the site and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment.
4. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST7 and MX1.
5. Reason: To ensure that the level of retail development is consistent with the local need for
retail development in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy S2.
6. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST1, ST7, ST8, DES1 and MX1 and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment.
7. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST1, ST7, ST8, DES1 and MX1 and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment.
8. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST1, ST7, ST8, DES1 and MX1 and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment.
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
9. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST1, ST7, ST8, DES1 and MX1 and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment.
10. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST1, ST7, ST8, DES1 and MX1 and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment.
11. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST1, ST7, ST8, DES1 and MX1 and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment.
12. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST1, ST7, ST8, DES1 and MX1 and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment.
13. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST1, ST7, ST8, DES1 and MX1 and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment.
14. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST1, ST7, ST8, DES1 and MX1 and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment.
15. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST1, ST7, ST8, DES1 and MX1 and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment.
16. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST1, ST7, ST8, DES1 and MX1 and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment.
17. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST1, ST7, ST8, DES1 and MX1 and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment.
18. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST1, ST7, ST8, DES1 and MX1 and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment.
19. Reason: To ensure a balanced mix of dwelling size is provided in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policy H1.
20. Reason: To ensure a balanced mix of dwelling type is provided in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policy H1.
21. Reason: To ensure an appropriate mixed use development in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policy MX1
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
22. Reason: To ensure an adequate amount of car parking is available for occupants and visitors
to the development in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy A10.
23. Reason: To ensure satisfactory standards of design and access for all users in accordance with
the Unitary Development Plan policies DES11 and DES2 and to accord with the requirements
of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment)(England)
Order 2006.
24. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policy DES1.
25. Reason: To ensure that the development accords with sustainability principles in accordance
with Unitary Development Plan policy EN22.
26. Reason: To enhance the setting of the canal in accordance with Unitary Development Plan
policy DES6.
27. Reason: To ensure that an acceptable standard of access and landscaping is available across
each necessary area of Public Realm before each plot is occupied in the interests of safety and
the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy DES2.
28. Reason: To ensure the provision of a reasonable standard of public realm in accordance with
Unitary Development Plan policy DES3.
29. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of
landscaping in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy DES9.
30. Reason: To ensure that there is a satisfactory relationship between the proposed development
and existing properties/surroundings in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy
DES1.
31. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of vehicles within the plot
boundary of the development site in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy A10.
32. Reason: To ensure that adequate car parking provision is made for disabled visitors or
occupiers of the development in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy A10.
33. Reason: To ensure that adequate taxi and cycling facilities are provided within the curtilage of
the plot in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy A10.
34. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular
users of these plots within the development in accordance with Unitary Development Plan
policy A2
35. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for pedestrians and cyclists using these
plots within the development in accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy A2.
36. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular
users of these plots within the development in accordance with Unitary Development Plan
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
policy A2.
37. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular
users of these plots within the development in accordance with Unitary Development Plan
policy A2.
38. Reason: In the interests of promoting the use of public transport in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan Policy A2.
39. Reason: To ensure the safe development of the site in accordance with Unitary Development
Plan policy EN17.
40. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with Unitary Development Plan
policy EN17.
41. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with Unitary Development Plan
policy EN17.
42. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance
with Unitary Development Plan policy EN17.
43. Reason: In order to adequately protect the historical heritage on the development site in
accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy CH5.
44. Reason: In the interests of promoting tourism and historic assets in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies ST4 and ST15.
45. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage in accordance with Unitary Development
Plan policy EN18
46. Reason: To prevent pollution of water resources in accordance with Unitary Development
Plan policy EN18
47. Reason: To ensure the safe development of the development site in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policy ST8.
48. Reason: In order to encourage waste recycling, in accordance with Unitary Development Plan
policy ST8.
49. Reason: In the interests of public safety and in accordance with Unitary Development Plan
policy DES10.
50. Reason: To safeguard the structural integrity of the railway and canal and in accordance with
Unitary Development Plan policy ST8.
51. Reason: In the interests of accessibility in accordance with Policy A2 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
52. Reason: In order to protect the quality of the air and the amenity of residents, in accordance
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
with policy EN17 of the Unitary Development Plan.
53. Reason: To prevent the spread of this invasive species on the site and in accordance with the
requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policy ST8.
54. Reason: To ensure satisfactory phasing of the development and to ensure that the development
accords with the scheme that was subject to environmental impact assessment and in
accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy ST8, DES7 and EN17.
55. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development and in
accordance with Unitary Development Plan policy EN17.
56. Reason: For the prevention of pollution and in accordance with Unitary Development Plan
policy EN18
57. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future users of the development and in accordance
with Unitary Development Plan policy DES5.
58. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance
with policy DES 7 of the Unitary Development Plan.
59. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents in accordance with Unitary
Development Plan policies DES5 and DES7.
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. This grant of planning permission does not authorise the closure or diversion of the public right
of way as indicated on the approved plan, until the appropriate order has been made.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
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. 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
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
above.
6. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980.
7. The approved plans for this planning permission comprise: Site Location Plan TD205/200C,
Site Layout Plan TD205-203K, Public Realm Implementation Phasing Plan TD296-22C,
Public Realm to Compliment Canal TD296-23 and Public Realm Landscape Materials Palette
11/06 (copy received on 28/11/06). The planning permission is subject to a Design Code
prepared by Valley _ Vale Properties 05/06 and an Environmental Statement prepared by
Waterman Environmental (May 2006).
Illustrative Master Plans TD205-201 and TD205-202F together with Soft and Hard Landscape
Design drawings TD29611-14 are for illustrative purposes only. The Landscape Design
Statement received on 10/10/06 is superseded.
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
At the meeting of the Panel held on 7th December 2006 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
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.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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
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
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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.
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
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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
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
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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
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.
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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.
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.
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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.
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.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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:
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
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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.
Black feature fin walls and surround provide a vertical link projecting from the faēade 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.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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
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.
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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
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.”
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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.
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.
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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:
i. 0.8344ha Sports Pitches
ii. 0.2858ha Children's Equipped Playspace
iii. 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
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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
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.
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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.
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. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
date of this permission.
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. 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
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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
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. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use that part of the site to be used by
vehicles shall be laid out, drained, surfaced and sealed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority and shall thereafter be made available at all times the premises are in use.
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
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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;
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
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. To ensure that the development is subject to minimum risk of flooding in accordance with
policy EN19 of the Unitary Development Plan.
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with policy EN16 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan
6. Reason: To encourage drivers to make use of the parking and servicing areas and to ensure
that the use of the land shall not give rise to hazards at the entrance/exit points in the interests
of public safety and in accordance with policy A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
7. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
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. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. To encourage alternative sustainable modes of transport in accordance with policy A10 of the
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
12. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance
with policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
13. Reason: For the 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. Reason: To encourage drivers to make use of the parking and servicing areas and to ensure
that the use of the land shall not give rise to hazards at the entrance/exit points in the interests
of public safety and in accordance with policy A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan.
16. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance
with policy DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
17. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy
DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
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.
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
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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:
06/53114/FUL
APPLICANT:
Contour Housing Group Ltd
LOCATION:
Builders Yard On Yew Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of three dwellings
and three apartments together with associated car parking and
construction of new and alteration to existing vehicular access.
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is currently a builders yard, to the north, south and west are residential
properties, and to the east is St Boniface School. The application site is adjacent to The Cliff
Conservation Area.
The application proposes the erection of three apartments to the front of the site and three dwellings
to the rear of the site. There would be 6 car parking spaces between the two blocks and alterations
to the existing access. The buildings would be two storeys in height.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle, recommends conditions
relating to contaminated land, lighting and dust.
Urban Regeneration Company – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections but recommends a condition relating to finished floor levels.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published 3rd August 2006
A site notice was displayed 25th July 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
362 – 382 Lower Broughton Road
2 – 16 (evens), 7, 9 and St Boniface Primary School Yew Street
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received six letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. Councillor
King has declared an interest in the application, his residential property bounds the site. The
following issues have been raised: Demolition of brick boundary wall and replacement with fencing
Overlooking
Additional traffic
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
RDF1 – Main Development Locations
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Development
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
EN19 – Flood Risk and Surface Water
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the
redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is acceptable; whether the design of the proposed
new buildings are acceptable; whether there would be an impact on the character and appearance of
the Conservation Area; whether there would be an impact on the amenity of existing or future
residents; whether the proposed level of car parking is sufficient: whether flood risk mitigation
measures are acceptable and whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with each in turn below.
Principle of Development
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford, Draft Policy RDF1 re-iterates this policy.
The development would see the re-use of brownfield land thus complying with criteria 1b of Policy
ST11 and the guidance contained within the draft Planning Policy Statement Note 3 – Housing
(PPS), which seeks to prioritise the development of such land over land that has not been previously
developed (greenfield land).
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Adopted policy E5 states that planning permission will only be granted for the re-use or
redevelopment of sites within an established employment area for non-employment uses where the
development would not compromise the operating conditions of other remaining employment uses
and where one or more of a number of criteria apply. The application site is an existing builders
yard. The total site area is less than 0.5 hectares; therefore adopted policy E5 is not applicable.
Adopted Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.
The proposal would include a mix of apartments and dwellings. The existing properties within the
locality consist of mainly two storey dwellings. I would consider the mix of the proposal to be
acceptable. I would therefore consider the principle of residential development upon this site to be
acceptable.
Impact on Amenity
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.
The proposed apartments are located on the Yew Street frontage and would be 21m from the
existing properties facing. The separation distance between the proposed properties within the site
would be slightly less at 20m. The proposed apartments have a small second bedroom located to
the rear. The proposal would have a positive impact on the street scene and the character of The
Cliff Conservation Area. Therefore in this instance I would consider the separation distance to be
acceptable. The proposal would be in excess of 21m from the rear elevations of properties on
Lower Broughton Road. The proposed dwellings located to the rear of the site would be 10.5m
from the rear boundary.
Each of the dwellings would have a private rear garden. Amenity space for the proposed
apartments would be located close to the car park.
I would not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of existing
properties nor on the future residents in accordance with DES7.
Design
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.
The Council’s Conservation Officer has been consulted on this application in respect of its impact
on the character of the adjacent Conservation Area. A number of recommendations were made and
the applicant has amended the proposal to address these recommendations. No objections have
been raised in relation to the amended proposal.
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The proposed apartments would be located on the Yew Street frontage. The proposal would be
two-storeys in height with a drive through and pedestrian access below one of the apartments. The
proposed apartments would have a vertical emphasis and bay windows.
The proposed dwellings would be located to the rear of the site and set back in excess of 30m from
Yew Street. The proposed design includes a single storey porch to the front elevation.
With the exception of the application site and the adjacent school the surrounding properties are
located within The Cliff Conservation Area. The proposed apartments reflect the horizontal
emphasis and bay window features of many of the properties within the conservation area. I would
consider the design of the proposal to be acceptable in this location. I have attached a condition
requiring the submission of samples of materials prior to the commencement of the development
and am satisfied that this will ensure that the materials will be appropriate. I would consider the
demolition of the builders yard and erection of the proposal to have a positive impact on the street
scene and the adjacent conservation area in accordance with policy DES1.
Car Parking
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
The proposal includes six car parking spaces. I am satisfied that the number of parking spaces is
adequate for this location and have no objections on highway safety in accordance with policy A10.
Flood Risk
Policy EN19 states that any development within a flood risk area will need to be accompanied with
a flood risk assessment. Mitigation and other measures should be clearly identified to reduce the
risk of flooding to an acceptable level.
A flood risk assessment was submitted as part of the application in accordance with the above
policy. The Environment Agency has assessed the assessment and has no objections to the
proposal but recommend a condition relating to minimum floor finished floor levels. The finished
floor levels would be 0.7m higher than the adjacent highway, the proposed building would be 8.2m,
I would consider the proposed height to be acceptable. The condition has been attached.
Other Issues
A number of objections relate to the boundary wall adjacent to the alley at the rear of existing
properties on Lower Broughton Road. The boundary wall currently stands in excess of 3m high.
The application when submitted intended to remove the wall and replace it with 2.1m high security
fence. The application has since been amended and the existing wall would be repaired and
reduced to 2.1m in height.
There are a number of trees located beyond the rear boundary of the site in the grounds of the
adjacent school. The applicant has submitted an arboricultural assessment detailing tree protection
zones. A condition has been attached to ensure all works are carried out in accordance with the
assessment.
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The proposed scheme has been amended to address concerns from neighbouring residents in
relation to the boundary treatment. The design of the proposed properties has been amended to
reflect features from properties within the conservation area.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes
is acceptable and the design is acceptable given the site’s close proximity to a conservation area. I
am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan and there are no material considerations, which outweigh this finding. I
therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for
the external elevations and roof of the building 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. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the
nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall
include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and
controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of ground conditions
on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building structures, on services and
landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors including ecological systems and
property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority 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 Local Planning Authority.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Dust Management Plan shall be submitted to
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Dust Management Plan shall
identify all areas of the site and site operations where dust may be generated and further
identify control methods to ensure that dust does not travel beyond the site boundary. All
identified measures included in the approved plan shall be implemented and maintained at all
times. Should any equipment used to control dust fail, the site shall cease all material handling
operations immediately until the dust control equipment has been repaired or replaced.
5. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme has been 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 dwelling.
6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with section 5 of the
Arboricultural Implication Assessment Ref TEP.1258.002 dated July 2006.
7. The minimum finished floor levels shall be 30.6m above Ordnance survey datum..
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the existing residents in accordance with policy DES 7 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R036B Good aboricultural practise
7. To reduce the risk of flooding.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. 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
above.
2. 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
3. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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.
4. Please note this permission relates to the following plans and documents
Drawing No. Revision
015
016
A
A
Arboricultural Implication Assessment Report REF: TEP.1258.002
Capita Symonds Structures Flood Risk Assessment SS015944/PG/November2006
5. The Flood Risk Area has determined that the development site is estimated to be on the
boundary of flood zone 3, potential purchasers should be advised of, and encouraged to register
with the Environment Agency's flood warning service.
6. The applicants attention is drawn to the attached letter from the Environment Agency.
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
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
At a meeting of the Panel on 7th December 2006 the members deferred the application to consider
amendments to the design of the office buildings along Liverpool Road and to investigate
improvements to the footpath adjacent to the southern boundary of the site.
With regards to design, the applicants have submitted amended plans. The plans show additional
features to the entrances facing the internal courtyard. These include a glazing element, upgraded
brickwork and fenestration and blue brick.
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The Liverpool Road frontage has upgraded brickwork and fenestration and the introduction of blue
fins to blocks B and D on the frontage and Block A, which is located on the corner of Liverpool
Road and the site access road.
The footpath to the running adjacent to the southern boundary of the site is a Definitive Footpath,
the applicants have agreed to contribute towards the clearing and improvement of the footpath. The
details of the improvements are to be agreed and would form part of the Section 106 agreement and
have been added to the recommendations at the end of this report.
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
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.
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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
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
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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.
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.
89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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.
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
90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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
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
91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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.
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
92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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 for a scheme to be submitted, agreed and implemented for
improvements to the footpath at the southern boundary of the site and 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
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.
93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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 a sum to be agreed as required by
Policy E4/9 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan will be paid to the Local
Planning Authority or such contribution to be made for the provision of transport infrastructure
or such purposes as agreed in writing, by the Local Planning Authority; shall improve public
access to the River Irwell Old Course and Manchester Ship Canal in accordance with Policy
E4/9 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan by contributing to the clearing
and improvement of the existing footpath running adjacent to the southern boundary of the site
to be detailed in a scheme which shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority, the agreed scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the
site.
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
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
94
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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
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
95
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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
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
96
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
APPLICATION No:
06/53294/TPO
APPLICANT:
Landscape Planning
LOCATION:
The Coppice Swinton M28 2NS
PROPOSAL:
Reduce by 3m from the building laurel (G7). Reduce by 2.5m
from the building holly (G7).Reduce branch spread by 3m from
the building birch (G7).Fell one birch (T24). Reduce by 2m
lowest branch growing towards plot 11 one horse chestnut
(T29). Prune branches to just above light unit one willow (T22)
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site has been developed to accommodate a number of new houses and apartments. The site is
bounded to the south, east and west by a golf course, whilst to the north is an unadopted road,
Chatsworth Road, which gives access to a number of large, detached properties with extensive
gardens.
The local treescape comprises of a large quantity of large, mature specimens within the
neighbouring gardens, along with areas of woodland and individual trees on the golf course site.
The development has been designed sympathetically with the surrounding area, in order to allow
the retention of a number of significant trees, giving a sense of maturity to the site and enabling it to
blend in with the surroundings.
The willow (T22) is protected by TPO 303. The Horse chestnut (T29) and the birch (T24) are
located within G14 of TPO 93. The laurel, holly and birch (G7) are located in A1 of TPO 241.
The application is for consent to reduce branches, prune and fell trees within a group of ornamental
shrubs that consist of laurel, holly and birch. It is not possible to number them individually as the
group is quite large. The laurel (within G7) is to be reduced away from plots 26 and 27 to leave a
3m clearance. The holly (within G7) is to be reduced to leave a 2.5m clearance from plots 26 and
27. The branch spread of the birch (within G7) is to be reduced to leave a 3m clearance from plots
26 and 27. The birch (T24) is to be felled. The lowest branch growing out towards plot 11 on the
horse chestnut (T29) is to be reduced. The branches of the willow tree (T22) are to be pruned to just
above lighting
column.
SITE HISTORY
In 2003 an application was made to demolish the existing four houses and erect one four storey
block of 12 apartments, one two storey block of two apartments, and 16 three storey dwelling
houses. This application was refused permission on 2nd October 2003 on the grounds that:
97
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
‘The proposed development would represent an overdevelopment of the site that would result in
buildings being located too close to trees that are protected by Tree Preservation Order that would
be both contrary to both the City Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on Trees, Policies
DEV1 and EN7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Planning Policy Guidance
Note 3 as it would result in the loss of protected trees that would be to the significant detriment of
the character and appearance of the local area.’
The appellant appealed against this decision. The appeal was lodged on 04.03.2006. The appeal
was dismissed on 16.03.2005. The appeal was dismissed because the inspector concluded that the
development would harm the character of the area due to loss of protected trees.
In 2004 an application was made to demolish the existing four houses and erect 15 houses and a
four-storey block comprising 12 apartments (ref:04/47899/FUL). This application was granted
permission on 15th July 2004. Included in this application were proposed works to trees on the site
that included felling and pruning.
In 2005 an application was made to Fell one birch (T26) and crown raise to 5m one sycamore
(T27), one birch (T28), one chestnut (T29) and one ash (T32). (ref:05/51124/TPO) This application
was granted permission on 26th August 2005 and the work was carried out.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
69, 71, 75 Chatsworth Road, Worsley
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 5 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised: 
T22, T29, T32 and T24 have been severely pruned and thinned out in the last
12 months with a number of TPO’d trees on the site

No documentation was received informing residents an application for the
pruning/removal of T28, T30, T31, T32, T53 and several mature flowering
cherries.

Legislation states that it is not permissible to grant further works to trees
within a stipulated time period.

The lower canopy of T32 has been recently severely pruned to a height of 10m

There is no apparent necessity to fell T24

T22 has been crown reduced by 2m and the remainder of the canopy pruned
and thinned out.
98
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006

The copse is to be protected so how can it be considered for removal. The only
reason for its removal is to facilitate a larger communal recreational area for
the adjacent flats.

T29 and T32 have been ‘land filled’ to a depth of 1m plus, contrary to BS
3998: 1998 ‘Recommendations For Tree Work’ and as documented in the
literature ‘Tree Welfare Relative To Property Development’

Extracts from the literature ‘Tree Welfare Relative to Property Development’
were ignored during the installation of the surface water and industrial plant
within the confines of the tree canopies
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Other policies: EN13 Protected trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN13 states that The Council will encourage the conservation of woodland by supporting
the retention of trees, woods, copses and hedgerows.
I have responded to the objections raised as follows:
i.
There is no visible evidence of ‘severe pruning’. The development has been designed and
constructed in conjunction with the surrounding trees and fulfilled the requirements of
BS5837: 1991 (Trees in Relation to Construction), which was the standard in force at the time
of the original planning application.
ii. Approval was given under planning application 04/47899/FUL for the following:



Fell two cherry (T30) and (T31)
Remove deadwood and crown clean one ash (T32)
Fell four cherry (T25), (T35), 1 cherry within G4 and 1 within G5
There has been no work carried out to the birch (T28)
T53 has been felled with out consent. The Council is in the process of issuing a re-planting notice.
This proposed tree work was submitted with application 04/47899FUL and approved. The
following neighbours were notified:
103, 105, 107, 113, 115, 117, 123, 125, 127, 131 Springclough
1, 6, 9, 12 Merlewood Drive
1,3,4,5, 6,7, 9, 15, 17, 19, 21, 42, 44, 46,47, 48, 50, 52,69,71, 72,73 74,75,76,77,79,
94,109,114, 116, 119, 122, 129,142, 144, 146, 148,192 Chatsworth Road
11, 12, 25 Hanover Court, Chatsworth Road
3, 4, 6, 14, 16 Bramley Close
1-37, Hollowgate, Broadoak Primary School, Fairmount Road
Clover Cottage Mill Brow
342 Worsley Road
99
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
3 Beechwood Drive
3, 4 and 6 Broadlands Road
2 Oakdene
14 Chalfont Drive
6 Grovehurst
1 Haddon Road
iii. There is no legislation precluding the reapplication of work to be carried out on protected trees.
Application 05/51124/TPO gives consent for the crown-raising of T29, the Horse Chestnut, to
5m and this work has been carried out to an acceptable standard. The tree does seem to have
sparse foliage, which is possibly an indication that the tree is entering into a phase of declining
health.
iv. T32, an Ash tree, has no evidence of recent pruning on the trunk, or of crown raising operations
being carried out. All the branch wounds on the trunk have occluded (healed over) indicating
that the tree was healthy and had enough stored energy to adequately occlude the wounds when
the branches where removed, and having inspected the wounds, they appear to have been
occluded for several years.
v. a Silver Birch tree, has an elongated, leaning trunk, which has grown phototropically (towards
the sunlight) due to its proximity to the crown of the adjacent Horse Chestnut tree (T29). The
tree leans towards the new development and the future potential issues, along with the amenity
value of this particular specimen as an individual, and as part of the wider landscape, have been
taken into account. The result is that the tree is not deemed worthy of retention, either
individually, or as part of the group. A condition to plant a replacement tree is recommended
vi. crown reduction and thinning of T22, a weeping Willow tree, which is afforded protection by
TPO 303. Under application 04/47899/FUL consent was given to remove deadwood stubs and
crown reduce to ‘dome out’ and re-shape the crown. The tree has not suffered unduly and the
aesthetic value of the tree has not been reduced. From a survey carried out at ground level it
appears that only two branches have been pruned from the top of the tree, to reshape and
maintain a symmetrical crown shape. The pruning works that have been carried out are
sympathetic and have taken into account the trees location and significant amenity value.
vii. Group G7 consists of various shrubs and trees, such as Laurel, Holly and Silver Birch, have not
been selected for removal, only for pruning. This pruning is to prevent future conflict between
the branches and plots 26 and 27, therefore a stipulation for the Laurel to be pruned to allow a
clearance of 3m from the building, whilst the Holly and the Birch are to have the branches
reduced in order to create a 2.5m/3m clearance from plots 26 and 27. This work will not detract
from the visual appearance of the group G7, which has limited public visibility.
viii. The ground level around the base of T29, the Horse Chestnut tree, shows no visible signs of any
change around the base of the tree, whereas without further investigation it will be difficult to
determine if, and by how much, the soil level has been changed around the base of T32, the Ash
tree. It generally accepted as bad practice because of the potential risk of stem rot and therefore
wind-throw.
ix. The installation of underground services within the crown spread of a tree should be carried out
in accordance with BS5837: 2005 (Trees in Relation to Construction) section 11.7, or BS5837:
100
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
1991 (Trees in Relation to Construction) section 7.5 if the application was accepted prior to the
introduction to the 2005 document.
The Council’s Consultant Arboriculturalist has inspected the trees and has no objections to the
proposed felling of the birch tree (T24) as the tree is suppressed and elongated and has grown
phototropically (towards the light). It leans at an angle of approximately 30 degrees towards the
new building; which could give rise to some apprehension about the trees stability. Also no
objections are lodged to the proposed reduction of the laurel, birch, horse chestnut, holly and the
proposed pruning of the Weeping Willow.
CONCLUSION
I am of the opinion that the proposed works would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on
the visual amenity of the treescape. The application is for felling and pruning works in line with
good arboricultural practice and tree maintenance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition C08T Time Limit - tree work
2. Standard Condition C09T British Standard - tree work
3. Standard Condition C11T Replacement - Planting season
4. During the first available planting season following the felling of the birch tree (T24) hereby
granted consent, it shall be replaced by one standard trees in accordance with British Standard
3936:Part 1:1992 (Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1: Trees and Shrubs) and which shall
have a clear stem height from the ground of 1.8m, a minimum overall height from the ground of
2.75m, a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of 8 cm. The species shall be
one surbus and shall be planted in the vicinity of the tree to be removed.
5. If the replacement trees dies or are removed within 5 years of planting, they shall be replaced
within 12 months of removal or death to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R035B Situation to be reviewed
2. Standard Reason R036B Good aboricultural practise
3. Standard Reason R036B Good aboricultural practise
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
101
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
APPLICATION No:
06/53223/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr O Hetta
LOCATION:
276 Leigh Road Worsley M28 1LF
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a detached garage
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property within the greenbelt. The proposal is for the erection
of a detached garage within the front garden of 276 Leigh Road. The proposed garage would be
located in front of an existing retaining wall and would measure 6.6 x 6.7 metres. It would be 2.6
metres in height and would have a flat roof. An up and over door measuring 2.1 x 4.7 metres would
provide access into the garage on the east elevation and a single door would be located on the west
elevation to enable pedestrian access. The development would also include the construction of two
new piers on the retaining wall to match the design of the proposed garage. Details of proposed
landscaping within the front garden have also been provided to help soften the visual impact of the
garage.
SITE HISTORY
Planning application 03/47448/HH for the partial demolition and substantial refurbishment of the
property was approved in February 2004.
Planning application 04/48256/FUL for the demolition of the existing property and erection of new
detached garage was approved in June 2004. Permitted Development rights on this property were
removed at this time. This approval was implemented.
Planning application for the erection of a detached garage and 1.8 metre high wall (04/49683/HH)
was subject to a split decision where the wall was approved and the garage was refused on the
grounds it would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area and would not
maintain the openness of the greenbelt (January 2005.) An appeal against this decision
(05/00017/REF) was later dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate. The inspector found that the
proposed garage would be a 52% increase in volume which could no be regarded as limited and
therefore was considered to be inappropriate in the greenbelt. Such development was considered to
breach the purpose of the greenbelt. The inspector also concluded that the proposed garage would
have an unacceptable impact on the street scene, and would harm the openness of the greenbelt.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
102
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
274 and 278 Leigh Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Building in front of the building line in the greenbelt is unacceptable
It was the applicant’s decision not to allow parking spaces to the sides or rear of the
property when the replacement house was built.
The application has been brought to panel for consideration at the request of Councillor Macdonald
due to the special nature of the application and the greenbelt issues related to the application.
PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE
Planning policy guidance 2: Greenbelts
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
SD5 – The Green Belts
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:
EN1 - Development affecting the green belt
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
HE11 – Hardstanding to the Front of Extensions
TD1 – Tree Surveys
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site Specific policies: none
Other policies:
RDF5 – Green Belts
PLANNING APPRAISAL
103
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposed development would
impact on the openness of the greenbelt; whether the increase in volume is considered to represent
a limited extension to the original dwelling within the greenbelt, and whether the design would be
appropriate within the street scene.
PPG2 states that the construction of new buildings inside the Green belt is inappropriate unless it is
for, amongst other types of development, “the limited extension, alteration or replacement of
existing dwellings. This is qualified in paragraph 3.6 of PPG2 where it states that “Provided that it
does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, the
extension or alteration of dwellings is not inappropriate in Green Belts.” This advice is echoed in
Policy EN1 which also states that the carrying out of engineering and other operations and the
making of material changes in the use of land are inappropriate development unless they maintain
openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the greenbelt.
Leigh Road is characterised by large properties set back from the main
road. There is an incline from the pavement towards the properties.
Open fields are located opposite these properties and the long gardens
significantly contribute to the open character of the area.
The garage has been designed in the same materials and style as the
existing retaining wall. The piers are proposed to ensure that the
southern elevation of the garage (which also includes piers) would
compliment each other. The roof would be flat and would accommodate
a planting scheme, in an effort to disguise the proposed development.
The driveway in front of the garage door exceeds the 5.5 metres set
out in policy HE12 of the House Extensions Supplementary Planning
Document.
The proposed garage would, however, extend 1.9m above the existing
boundary wall and 0.6m above the existing retaining wall to the rear
of the proposal. Given the incline towards the existing buildings,
such an increase in height would appear overbearing. The proposed
extension would also be forward of the existing building line in a
prominent location within what is a large front garden. This would
not comply with policy DES1 of the UDP, despite efforts to minimise
visual impact of the proposed development on the street scene.
In order to accommodate the proposed garage, it is proposed that an
existing sycamore tree would be removed. An arboricultural report
advised that: the sycamore tree is in poor condition and could be
removed; that the proposed development would not impact upon the
remaining trees; that the planting bed to the front of the property
should be maintained; and that two new trees should be incorporated
into the landscape area at the front of the property.
The existing building which was approved in June 2004 (04/48256/FUL)
represented a 38.5% increase in the cubic volume of the original
building. This was considered to be appropriate development and was
the permission which was subsequently implemented. This represented
104
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
a lesser volume than that approved in a previous application
(03/47448/HH). However, the 38.5% increase of the implemented
permission was considered to be significant but not disproportionate
as the footprint of the building did not change significantly.
The previous garage (04/49683/HH) was refused on the grounds that the
increase in volume would bring the percentage increase on the previous
building to 52%, which was deemed unacceptable in the greenbelt.
Refusal was also based on the grounds of the unacceptable impact on
the openness of the greenbelt. The existing building and garage which
is currently proposed would represent a 48.8% increase on the original
dwelling. It is considered that the proposal does not overcome the
reasons for refusal of the previous application. The increase in
volume of built development could not be regarded as limited and is
considered to be inappropriate in the greenbelt. The development by
nature of its siting, and elevated position, would have an adverse
impact on the openness of the greenbelt and would have an unacceptable
impact on the street scene.
CONCLUSION
The proposed extension would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the street scene, and
therefore does not comply with policies DES1 and DES8 of the UDP. The siting and size of the
proposed garage would have an unacceptable impact on the openness of the greenbelt, and the
percentage development, given would not be limited development and therefore does not comply
with policy EN1 of the Unitary Development Plan or PPG2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed garage within the Green Belt would by virtue of its size and aiting have a
detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area and would not maintain the openness of
the Green belt, contrary to policies: EN1 Development affecting the greenbelt of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed garage would be virtue of its size and siting have a detrimental impact on the
visual amenity of the area, contrary to policies, DEV8 Alterations and Extensions of the House
Extensions SPD.
APPLICATION No:
06/53385/COU
APPLICANT:
J Cash (Metals) Limited
105
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
LOCATION:
Unit 3 Regent Trading Estate Oldfield Road Salford
PROPOSAL:
Change of use to recovery of metal from scrap and metal
processing
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an industrial unit on the Regent Trading
Estate on Oldfield Road, Salford 5. It is proposed to change the use
of the unit from a B2, light industrial warehouse to a site for the
reclamation and processing of metals including cables, lead, copper
and other valuable metals. The facility would be open 8am to 6pm Monday
to Friday, 8am to 4pm on Saturdays and 9am till 1pm on Sundays. In
total 4 members of staff would be employed on site.
The site would function in a similar way to a waste transfer station.
3 heavy goods vehicles and up to 15 smaller vehicles will visit the
site in any one day, delivering cables and other non ferrous scrap
metals. Upon arrival at the site the vehicles will enter the unit to
be unloaded. Once unloaded the cables will be stripped using a cable
stripper in order to separate the plastic. The metals will also be
sorted and compacted into bails for distribution to a reprocessing
site or another end user. All operations and storage would take place
within the unit.
A railway line occupies the land to the south of the unit and a series of industrial and commercial
units occupy the land to the north, east and west of the unit.
The applicant currently occupies a site within the proposed Middlewood locks development, that
appears elsewhere on this agenda. The purposes of this application is to enable the relocation of the
premises and therefore assist the redevelopment of the Middlewood Locks site for a large-scale
mixed-use development.
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Geological unit – No objections
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to the attachment of a
condition requiring the doors of the unit to be closed while processing is carried out.
Environment Agency – No comments to date.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
106
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Units 1,2, 4 and 5 Regent Trading Estate
The recycling Centre, Upper Wharf Street
41, 45 and 47 Oldfield Road (various floors)
5 Hulme Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
EQ5 A Regional Approach to Waste Management
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE NORTH WEST
EM11 Waste Management Principles
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: W1 - Waste Management
ST11 – Location of New Development
DES1 - Respecting Context
DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN17 Pollution Control
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the use, the impact the
proposed use would have on health and amenity of neighbouring users, and the impact that the
proposed development would have on the highway network.
Principle of development
Policy ST11 of the adopted UDP advocates a sequential approach to development with sites
involving the reuse and conversion of existing buildings been the preferred location of
development, followed by previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
This application relates to an existing industrial unit on the Regent
Trading Estate. The site is previously developed and therefore the
proposals to use the site for the reclamation and processing of metals
is in accordance with Policy ST11 as it involves the reuse of an
existing building.
Policy EQ5 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West states
that there should be increased re-use and recycling of household,
commercial and industrial waste.
107
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Draft Policy EM11 of the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the North
West states that proposals should promote more effective forms of
waste management.
Policy W1 of the adopted UDP encourages proposals that recycle waste and conserve resources.
In principle the proposal to develop the unit as a site for the
reclamation and processing of metals is welcomed as it allows
recycling and reuse of metals thus allowing for the conservation of
natural resources.
Amenity of the area
Policy W1 states that planning permission will be granted for development involving waste
management unless the proposals would have an adverse impact upon health, residential amenity or
the amenity of other environmentally sensitive users or the proposals would have an unacceptable
impact upon the highway network in terms of access, traffic generation, safety and the free flow of
traffic.
With regard to the acceptability of operating a waste transfer station in this location, I am of the
opinion that such a use is appropriate given that the unit to which the application relates is located
within an industrial estate, surrounded by other industrial and commercial uses. There are no
residential properties within the immediate vicinity of the site, nor are there any other
environmentally sensitive land users. All storage and processing will take place within the unit and
therefore the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon on the visual amenity
of the area or the amenity of neighbouring land users.
It should however be noted that there are a number of extant approvals for residential development
within the vicinity of the site including approvals for the redevelopment of Albert Mill and
Islington Mill, Transport House and Stamford House and the site at 2 to 12 Chapel Street.
The closest of these sites is Islington Mill that is located approximately 55m to the north east of the
application site. In addition there is an outline application (access only) currently under
consideration to develop the land to the south of the site, across the railway line, for mixed use
development comprising 142,697 sq.m residential use (Class C1 and C3); 67,773 sq.m commercial
use (Class B1); and 27,191 sq.m leisure/retail use (Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and D2) together with
associated uses, car parking, landscaping and infrastructure (06/52762/OUT). This site is known as
Middlewood Locks. Given the characteristics of this site, adjacent to a railway line fronting a main
road, there will have to be significant mitigation measures implemented in order to ensure that
future occupants of the proposed dwellings enjoy a satisfactory level of amenity. Taking into
account that all proposed storage and processing will take place within the unit on the application
site, I am of the opinion that should the proposal receive favourable consideration it would not
prejudice the development of the neighbouring site.
Car Parking and Highways
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists.
108
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
There are currently 5 car parking spaces allocated to the proposed unit. These would be available
for use by staff of the proposed recycling facility. I do not consider that the vehicle movements
associated with the proposed metal processing plant would be comparable to those associated with
a B2 light industrial/warehouse unit. Consequently I am of the opinion that the proposed change of
use would not have an adverse impact upon the functioning of the highway network in the vicinity
of the site.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposal would contribute to sustainable waste management as advocated by Policy
EQ5 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West and Policy W1 of the adopted UDP all of
which seek to encourage higher recycling rates and the conservation of natural resources.
The site is situated in an existing industrial and commercial area where there are no residential
properties or environmentally sensitive land users. The proposed development would therefore
have minimal impact on the local population and the environment. The proposal is therefore
consistent with policy W1 of the adopted UDP and therefore I recommend that the application be
approved subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The doors to the unit shall remain closed at all times when materials are being handled or
processed unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
3. The use hereby permitted shall ONLY be operated between the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday
to Friday, 8am and 4pm on Saturdays and 9am and 1pm on Sundays.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
APPLICATION No:
06/53552/FUL
APPLICANT:
Opal Telecom Ltd
109
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
LOCATION:
Land Corner Of Siemans Road Brinell Drive And Martens
Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a three storey office building comprising 5384 sq.m
B1 (Business Use) together with associated car parking, service
yard, landscaping and construction of new and alteration to
existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site that covers an area of 1.11 hectares and is bounded by Siemens
Road to the west, Brinell Drive to the north, Martens Road to the east and Irlam Business Park to
the south. The site is located within the Northbank Industrial Park. A large derelict warehouse unit
currently occupies the site. Although mostly surrounded by similar industrial, warehousing and
office accommodation, there are residential properties located to the south west of the site,
approximately 30m away.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a part three-storey, part four-storey office building
with a gross floorspace of 5,110 square metres. The proposed office building would wrap around
the northwestern corner of the site fronting onto Brinell Drive and Siemens Road with the
four-storey element forming a strong visual feature at the junction. The proposed building has a
modern design, constructed out of brick with areas of cladding.
Vehicular access to the site would be off Siemens Road, vehicular egress from the site is via
Martens Road. 288 off road parking spaces including 12 that are suitable for use by disabled
persons would be provided. Storage for 14 cycles and 4 motorcycles would be provided in an
undercover store.
The proposed unit will be used as an Engineering Head Quarters for Opal Telecomms. The site
would provide a base for engineers and technical support staff who would deal with phone enquires
(call centre). As an engineering head quarters the site would also be used as a venue for
management meetings and a centre for the training of staff.
SITE HISTORY
An application for the erection of three storey offices on land at the corner of Siemens Road and
Brinell Drive was approved December 1997 (ref 97/37246/TPDC).
An application for the erection of a building to provide three warehouse/light industrial units and
four, three-storey office buildings together with associated car parking and construction of
vehicular accesses was approved February 2000 (ref 99/40045/FUL).
An application for the erection of building to provide three warehouse/light industrial units, and
four three-storey office buildings together with associated car parking and construction of vehicular
accesses (resubmission of 99/40045/FUL) was approved July 2000
110
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
An application for the erection of twelve, two storey office units together with associated car
parking and landscaping was approved in April 2004 (ref 04/47633/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections
United Utilities – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections, recommending the site is gated
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on the 5th of October 2006.
A site notice was posted on the 13th of October 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
The Medway, Gilchrist Road
Sports 2000, Siemens Road
Brookstore Equipment Company Ltd, Siemens Road
Bendex Plastics Ltd, Siemens Road
T & A Electrical Ltd, Siemens Road
Libra Chemicals, Brinell Drive
T B S Fabrications Ltd, Martens Road
Varn House, Northbank Industrial Estate, Brinell Drive
Thurnall Engineering, Brinell Drive
1 Siemens Road, Irlam
9 to 21 (odd) Anglers Rest, Cadishead
41 to 43 (odd) Atherton Lane, Cadishead
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 Quality in New Development
EC8 Town Centres – Retails, Leisure and Office Development
Appendix 4 – Regional Car Parking Standards
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site Specific Polices – none
Other Policies - DP1 – Regional Development Principles
111
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 - Location of New Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the design of the proposed development is acceptable: whether
there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity; whether the proposed level of parking
is acceptable; and whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
Principle –
Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land.
Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and
conversion of existing buildings been the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
Policy ST3 of the adopted UDP seeks to encourage a good range of local employment
opportunities.
Policy EC8 of the Regional Spatial Strategy relates to town centres and the location of new retail,
leisure and office development. It states that office development that generates a significant number
of trips should be directed towards locations within or adjoining main city or district centres and
near to major public transport interchanges within urban areas.
According to PPS6 new retail, leisure and office development should be located within existing
centres. It goes on to state that in the absence of any appropriate site in established centres, edge of
centre sites are considered most appropriate followed by out of centre sites, with preference being
given to locations that are accessible, close to an existing centre and have a high likelihood of
forming links with the centre.
The proposed development would provide 5110sq.m (net) of office floorspace and it is therefore
classed as a major trip generator.
The applicant has provided a justification on why they need to be located at the Brinell Drive site.
Their justification can be summarised as follows - Opal Telecomms is the network operations
division of Carphone Warehouse. Opal Telecomms currently operates out of three technical centres
including one on Brinell Drive in Irlam which is the network operations and engineering support
centre for the whole of the UK. Business has expanded six fold since the company was established
in 1995 and as a result the existing site is no longer large enough to accommodate the 5 telephone
exchanges needed to run the northern branch of the company together with the engineers and
112
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
support staff. Opal Telecomms therefore need an additional office space where existing staff can be
relocated. The nature of the business is such that the engineers and support staff need to be located
within close proximity of the telephone exchanges. The applicant is therefore of the opinion that it
is essential that Opal Telecomms relocate within the Irlam area in order to ensure the continued
smooth operation of the business and to aid the continued expansion of the business. It would also
ease the relocation of staff.
The applicant has also submitted a sequential test with their application, which demonstrates that
there aren’t any suitable buildings or sites that provide the required floorspace (5,000sq.m) within
Western Salford.
In addition the applicant has submitted a letter from Salford City
Council’s Economic Development Team and a letter from Canning
O’Neill, both of whom have conducted a search of sites and buildings
within the Salford’s four town centres – Eccles, Swinton, Pendlebury
and Walkden. Neither search identified any properties or sites within
one of Salford’s four town centres that would satisfy Opal’s needs.
These 3 pieces of evidence suggest that the application site is a
suitable site for office development as they satisfy, at least in
part, the requirements of Policy ST11 and PPS6.
The allocation of several sites on the Northbank Industrial Estate
for office development and the existence of an extant planning
approval for 12 office units on the site further justify the
suitability of this site for office use.
Within the adopted UDP several sites on the Northbank Industrial
Estate are allocated as sites where B1 office development would be
appropriate. Such sites include land on Fairhills Road/ Soapstone
Way, a plot of land on Gilchrist Road and the land at Irlam Wharf Road.
As allocated sites it has been judged that the development of these
sites for employment purposes would be in accordance with Policy ST11.
These sites share some common characteristics with the application
site in that they are all edge of centre locations with a reasonable
level of accessibility. These site have been judged to be in
accordance with the sequential approach of ST11. I am of the opinion
that the application site is also in accordance with ST11 as it is
more closely linked to the Cadishead Town Centre, from which it is
just 500m, and it is more accessible than the three allocated sites
given its location just 100m from Liverpool Road and 500m from Irlam
train station.
Overall having had regard to the sequential test, the property
searches undertaken by Economic Development and Canning O’Neill and
the rationale provided for locating in Iralm together with fact that
several other sites on the Northbank Industrial estate have been
allocated for B1 office development I do not have any in principle
objections to the development of the site for office use.
113
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Design –
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical
context and to respect the character of the surrounding area. In
assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy,
regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship
to existing buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed
materials.
The proposed building would be a modern structure with a flat roof.
The building would wrap around the northwestern corner of the site.
The building would be four stories in height at the junction of Brinell
Drive and Siemens Road (19.5m), dropping down to three stories going
south down both Brinell Drive and Siemens Road (15.3m). The proposed
office building would be taller than the neighbouring units, which
are typically two stories, ranging in height from 12.5m to 8m. Despite
this I do not feel that the proposed office unit would have an adverse
impact upon the visual amenity as the unit is well designed and has
been sited in such a way that it would create a focal point at the
junction of Brinell Drive and Siemens Road appearing as a landmark
building in the area.
The proposed building would be constructed using a mixed palette of
materials including brickwork and metal panelling all of which
contribute to the modern design and distinctiveness of the proposal,
and help to add interest to the street-scene.
I have attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of
materials to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of
development and I am satisfied that this will ensure that they will
be of a suitably high quality and in keeping with the surrounding area
as well as ensuring that the proposed building makes a positive
contribution to the character of the area.
Amenity
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users
with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development that would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments will not normally be permitted.
The land to the north, east and west and immediately to the south of
the site is used for industrial/commercial purposes. The closest
residential units are located 30m to the southeast of the site, on
Atherton Lane. The property at 51 Atherton Lane does not have any
habitable rooms in their gable end. The layout of the site is such
that the proposed building would be located to the north of these
properties and consequently the proposed development would not have
an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of the
properties on Atherton Lane currently enjoy.
114
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Car Parking and Access
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. According to the Council’s
maximum standards no more than 146 car parking spaces should be provided for an office
development of this size, 5110sq.m.
In total 288 car parking spaces would be provided on site, including 12 that are suitable for use by
disabled persons. The development would therefore exceed the Council’s maximum parking
standards by 142 spaces.
The proposed development would function as an Engineering Head Quarters, which would provide
a base for engineers and technical support staff, a venue for management meetings and a centre for
training. As such the proposed development would be a significant employment provider, not just
within Salford but also within the wider North West region.
The site would be intensely occupied, with some 500 staff being employed. Of the staff employed
on site 300 would work a normal working day and 200 would be employed on a shift basis,
allowing for 24-hour operation. There are 4 shifts – 8am to 8pm, 8pm to 8am, 8am to 3pm and 3pm
to 10pm. The exact numbers of staff working each shift is not known however higher levels of staff
would be present at peak periods i.e around 3pm. In addition to the 300 day staff and those working
a day shift it is also possible an additional 100 staff could be present if a management meeting and
a training session are taking place.
The technical nature of the business is such that a large proportion of staff are highly skilled and
therefore drawn from a large geographical area. This, in combination with the fact that the proposed
offices will be used as a base for national management meetings and company wide training means
that the majority of staff will have to travel to the site by car as a result of the impracticalities over
using public transport over extended distances and outside peak travel times.
On this basis it is reasonable to assume that the operational demand of the business would be in the
region of 500 parking spaces. The developer is however aware of the sustainable development
agenda and as a result they are advocating a number of schemes to minimise car use including the
creation of a green travel plan that promotes car sharing and the use of public transport. They are
also investigating the use of a shuttle bus service in order to enable employees travelling from
further a field to utilise public transport for at least part of their journey.
In my view if the parking provision was reduced so that it is inline with the Council’s maximum
standards the absence of local over flow car parking could result in employees and visitors to the
site parking on street, exacerbating the existing parking problems within the vicinity of the site,
causing concerns for the free flow of traffic, particularly heavy good vehicles, throughout the
estate.
On balance, having regard to the employment opportunities the proposed development would
create, the nature of the proposed development, the high staffing levels and the shift patterns and
the developers commitment to minimise car use, I am of the opinion that whilst not in accordance
with Salford’s maximum parking standards, the circumstances of this application are exceptional
and justify an exception in this instance.
115
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The siting of the proposed office building has been revised in order to create an active frontage
along Brinell Drive and Siemens Road.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of
the site for office purposes is acceptable. I am of the opinion that
the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the Adopted UDP
and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding.
I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to the
following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Standard Condition D02Y Details of materials
3. 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 12 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.
4. No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the Report)
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of ground contamination and
ground gases on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors
as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks
to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address the implications of
ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied building
structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors
including ecological systems and property. The investigation shall where appropriate include a
risk assessment and an options appraisal including the remedial strategy.
The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation survey.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including its risk
assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial
strategy.
116
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local Planning
Authority.
5. No development shall be commenced unless and until an air quality assessment has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The air quality
assessment shall assess the existing and future air quality for years 2010, 2020 and opening
year with and without the development for the following pollutants: nitrogen dioxide. The
assessment should identify the worst case exposure, changes in pollution concentration to
residents of the proposed development e.g. building faēade, and identify any changes in
pollution levels where the public exposure occurs as a result of the development. The predicted
levels should be compared with the relevant Air Quality Objectives set in the Air Quality
Regulations 2000 and amendments thereof. Mitigating measures relevant to the application
shall be set out and submitted for approval. The development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details.
6. The rating level (LAeq,T) from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the development,
when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90,T) by more
than -5dB at any time when measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises. Noise
measurements and assessments shall be carried out according to BS4142; 1997.
7. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all
surface water drainage from vehicle parking 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.
8. Within a period of three months of the occupation of the unit, the tenant/landlord shall
undertake a travel survey and this data will form part of a Travel Plan. Within a period of 6
months from the first date of occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the
written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall as a minimum include
the broad areas of actions, objectives and timescales for review and monitoring. Within twelve
months of occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall be submitted for the written approval
of the Local Planning Authority, which shall include a review of targets, measures, staff survey
data and a monitoring survey. Annually from the occupation of the building, a Travel Plan shall
be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority for a period of 5 years
and then at a time agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
9. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of
development, the finished floor levels of the buildings hereby approved shall be a minimum of
300mm above the adjacent road level.
10. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the location, design and
construction of on-site parking facilities for 14 cycles and 4 motorcycles shall be submitted to,
and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. These facilities shall be provided
prior to the first occupation of the development and thereafter made available at all times the
development is operational.
117
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
11. Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application (Drawing No. 001 Revision P5) the
car parking layout and site access shall be revised to provide a single vehicular entrance off
Siemens Road, a single vehicle egress via Martens Road and a maximum of 288 spaces
including 12 that are suitable for use by disabled persons. The scheme detailing the revised car
parking layout and site access shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority Prior to the commencement of development. The access to the site and the
car park shall be laid out in accordance with the approved scheme and shall be retained in such
a condition thereafter.
(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 R005B Amenity - neighbours
7. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
8. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with
Policy A1 of the UDP.
9. To reduce the risk flooding in accordance with Policy EN19 of the adopted UDP.
10. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
11. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. In noise terms, 't' refers to any 1 hour period between 07.00hrs and 23.00hrs, between 23.00hrs
and 07.00hrs the following day, 't' refers to any 5 minute period. For further discussions
regarding the requirements of the noise condition, the applicant/developer is advised to contact
the Environmental Protection Team in the Environment Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551)
APPLICATION No:
06/53636/FUL
APPLICANT:
K W Linfood Plc
LOCATION:
Land On The South West Side Of Michigan Avenue Salford
118
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
PROPOSAL:
Erection of four-26 storey buildings comprising 1164
apartments and 58,475 sq.ft of commercial space for
A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,B1,D1 and D2 use together with associated car
parking and alteration to existing and contruction of new
vehicular access
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This site comprises land at the southern end of Michigan Avenue adjacent to the Harbour City
Metrolink Stop. The site is split into two and is divided by the roundabout at the southern end of
Michigan Avenue. There are two single storey industrial units which appear unoccupied. The
harbour city tram stop is located immediately adjacent to the eastern half of the site. To the north of
the site lie low rise industrial units whilst to the south across the Quays Loop Road and Metrolink
line are the three NV Buildings at 17 storeys each. Also across the Quays Loop Road are the Conran
Buildings which is nearing completion and which have a 22 storey tower, and the Victoria &
Alexandra Office buildings. Also along the Quays Loop Road is the Millennium development
which has permission for a 22 storey tower and is currently under construction.
Planning permission is sought for four towers containing 1148 residential units comprising of 184
smart pads, 668 one bedroom apartments, 208 two bedroom apartments and 104 large two bedroom
apartments and 5,021 sq m of commercial floorspace (Classes A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,B1,D1 and D2).
Two towers would be sited on each half of the site.
Principally, the proposed design consists of 4 identical residential towers sited on four podiums
which contain the remaining mix of uses. Two levels of car parking are at basement level. All four
towers would contain 24 storeys of residential accommodation and two commercial floors above
ground level and two basement car parking levels, including the amenity podium level this would
equate to 29 storey in total.
Two towers would be sited on each side of Michigan Avenue. The towers are proposed to be built
on podiums which would contain the retail and leisure space to the south, west and east frontages.
The retail and leisure uses would have full height glazing. Five hundred and forty three car parking
spaces are proposed on two underground levels. Vehicular access is proposed off the roundabout at
the southern end of Michigan Avenue. A recessed floor above the podium level would provide
some shared amenity space for residents.
The applicant has submitted a planning and design statement which explains the architects
justification for the form and mass of the proposed building and considers views between the
buildings and connectivity in the area. The planning policy framework is also considered as is the
future redevelopment of the area. The applicant has also submitted a wind study which analyses the
existing wind conditions at the site and the impact of the proposed buildings upon the wind
conditions at ground level.
The applicant has also submitted a Transport Assessment which addresses capacity issues on
several local roads, public transport provision, cycle access and access for people with impaired
119
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
mobility and considers the planning framework with respect to transportation. The transport
assessment includes existing developments in its analysis and also permitted but as yet
unimplemented developments in the area. The transport assessment explains the development
would not itself require the construction of the Broadway Link to ease pressure on the local traffic
network. The transport assessment concludes that the proposed development would not have any
significant impacts upon the local highway network and the development would promote
sustainable transport choices.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was approved in January 2006 for the demolition of existing industrial unit
and erection of two 21 storey and two 29 storey towers providing 600 residential units together with
retail, leisure and creche development on ground floor with part underground and part integral car
parking on ground to first floor, alterations to existing vehicular access and alterations to public
realm (05/50434/FUL).
Neighbouring site
Planning permission has recently been approved to the west of this site (Media City). The scheme
was in outline and sought consent for layout and access in respect of the redevelopment of 15.1
hectares of land to provide mixed use development comprising business, studios and production
space, residential, live/work units, retail (including shops, financial and professional services,
restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments and hotfood takeaways), hotel and leisure together
with associated car parking, highway works and open space (06/53168/OUT)
CONSULTATIONS
Manchester Airport – No objection subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the use of
lighting on cranes during construction.
Civil Aviation Authority – Advises the Council to be sure the development accords with
Government guidance on proximity to Aerodromes.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No known features of archaeological interest.
Director of Environmental Services – The site is on the edge of the former dockland area and is
currently under industrial use. It is highly likely that there will be some contamination to the ground
in the area with a possibility for gas migration affecting the ground floor levels. A full site
investigation report will be required to determine the risk and any necessary ground contamination
or gas which could affect the amenity of future residents. The site is also adjacent to one of two
major access routes to the Lowry centre and associated facilities as well as several other large scale
mixed use sites. It is likely that noise from these uses will have an impact on the future residents on
site. The site is also surrounded on two sides by the Eccles-Manchester Metrolink service. The third
side is also abutting industrial sites. Noise is likely to have a significant impact on this application
and as such a condition will be required to assess and propose mitigation measures commensurate
with the end uses. Noise from the site may also be an issue for other surrounding residential uses
from the retail uses proposed on the ground floor.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – Explain that public transport links are
good and that high density development such as this is supported by GMPTE. Recommend a free
one year travel pass for each residential unit, a buyers pack to include information on public
transport and a personalised journey planner.
120
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions relating to surface water drainage and
a contaminated land condition.
Lowry Development Company – No comments received
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council – No comments received
United Utilities – No objections subject to the applicant agreeing drainage details with United
Utilities.
Highways Agency – No comments received
In response to the previous application - Provide comments on the Transport Assessment which
relates to the applicants proposals for the wider area. State that this proposed development would
not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the Trunk Road network.
Grain Wharf Residents Association – No comments received
Grain Wharf Management Company – No objections received
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – consider the follow:
The principle of tall, mixed-use, residential-led towers on the site is accepted and
supported, and fits with the Vision and Regeneration Framework aspirations in priority
project 14.
The scale and massing of the towers is supported. However the design should incorporate
more interest to the rear (south) elevations, as the development appears to turn its back to
the north.
The applicant has not provided sufficient information to justify the mix of residential
accommodation proposed. (As in paragraph 3.42 of the Planning Support Statement – ID
Planning). We cannot support the proposed mix without this information.
The Sustainability Appraisal (WSP) is inadequate for this development, as it has been
prepared for an outline planning application, whereas this application is for full consent.
The sustainability review is based on the intrinsic characteristics of the site and not the
essential analysis of the sustainability credentials of the composition of the building and its
operation.
There appears to be an inconsistency between the form and siting of the car parking vents
on the External Works Ground Floor Plan and the General Arrangement North Elevation.
Please could you confirm which is correct.
We would support the Council in pursuing affordable housing within the development.
We would suggest that Urban Vision’s landscape design section reviews the landscaping
proposals for compatibility with the existing hard landscaping.
Peter Hunter – Peter Hunter advises that the design of the scheme is of a high quality and a further
improvement over what has already been approved. He considers that the improvements to the
design justify the increase in the additional height of two of the four towers.
GM Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments received
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 28th November 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 26th October 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
60 – 97 Vancouver Quay
30 – 58 Winnipeg Quay
15 – 173 Labrador Quay
1 – 164 NV Buildings
121
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
43-68 St Lawrence Quay
City Lofts, Harrogate
Alexandra Building
Victoria Building
Capstan House, Broadway
Chandlers Point 33-37 Broadway
Air Products Ltd, Broadway
JDS Trucks, Broadway
Spinnaker Court, Chandlers Point, Broadway
Abbey Life Insurance, Broadway
Lowry House, 5 Ohio Avenue
1 - 4 Ohio Avenue
Units 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 Michigan Avenue
Batleys Plc, Ohio Avenue
1 - 5 Central Park, Ohio Avenue
Avis Fleet Services, Ohio Avenue
Hedgehog House, Ohio Avenue
Unisafe House, Ohio Avenue
Units 2 – 7 Washington Centre, 102 – 112 Broadway
114 – 116, 122, 124, 200, 210 Broadway
Freshbake Foods, 101 Broadway
1a, 1 - 4 Anchorage Quay
Bupa Offices, Anchorage Quay
Newscentre, Anchorage Quay
Wright Health Group, Anchorage Quay
Barclays Bank, Anchorage Quay
Youth Centre, Anchorage Quay
Food Mountain, Anchorage Quay
Ventor Factors Plc, Anchorage Quay
FM Insurance, Anchorage Quay
Trillium, Anchorage Quay
Allianz Cornhill, Anchorage Quay
Amec, Anchorage Quay
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 4 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Unacceptable adverse impact on existing electronic and data services
Unacceptable adverse impact on local highways and related infrastructure
Unacceptable adverse impact on existing utilities
Regeneration and new development should be directed towards less well off areas
No more luxury flats are required
Height would dominate the area
Excessive number of apartments
Would provide a transient rather than sustainable community
Preferable to see family accommodation
Traffic congestion
122
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Noise and disturbance
Need for infrastructure such as doctors and dentists
Amount of apartments still be constructed
Overshadowing
Should be reduced in size
Too much high density housing in one space
No parking for visitors
No green space
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: MX1/3 – Development in Mixed Use Areas (Salford Quays)
Other policies: ST2: Housing Supply, ST6: Major Trip Generating Development, ST7: Mixed-Use
Development, ST11: Location of New Development, ST12: Development Density, DES1:
Respecting Context, DES2: Circulation and Movement, DES3: Design of Public Space, DES4:
Relationship of Development with Public Space, DES5: Tall Buildings, DES6: Waterside
Development, DES9: Landscaping, DES10: Design and Crime, DES11: Design Statement, H1:
Provision of New Housing Development, H2: Managing the Supply of Housing, H4: Affordable
Housing, H8: Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development, S2: Retail and
Leisure Development Outside Town Centres, and Neighbourhood Centres, S4: Amusement
Centre and Food and Drink Uses, A1: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans, A2: Cyclists,
Pedestrians and the Disabled, A3: Metrolink, A8: Impact of Development on the Highway
Network, A9: Provision of New Highways, A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking
in New Developments, EN16: Contaminated Land, EN17: Pollution Control, EN18: Protection of
Water Resources, EN22: Resource Conservation, R2: Provision of Recreational Land and
Facilities, DEV5: Planning Conditions and Obligations, CH5: Archaeology and Ancient
Monuments
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1
–
L4
MCR2 -
Regional Development Principles
Regional Housing Provision
Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City Region
123
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
There are a number of Supplementary Planning Documents which are also relevant to the
determination of this application. These include Design and Crime, Trees, the Greenspace Strategy
and Biodiversity and Nature Conservation. The Council’s Housing Planning Guidance and
Planning Obligations SPD are also relevant, but have not as yet been adopted so can therefore only
be afforded limited weight in the decision making process. The Council, in conjunction with
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council, has also recently produced a draft of the Mediacity:UK
and Quays Point planning guidance, which has been the subject of public consultation. This is
however non-statutory guidance as it is not included within the Council’s Local Development
Framework. It does however set out guidelines which both authorities should have regard to in the
determination of planning applications, albeit that it has limited weight at this stage.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Given that the site does benefit from an extant permission for a mixed use residential lead scheme I
consider that the principle of a mixed use scheme has been established on this employment site.
Therefore, I consider that the main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the
principle of the proposed scale of 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; and whether the
proposed level of parking is acceptable. I shall deal with each of these issues in turn.
Principle of the Redevelopment of the Site
Policy ST11 outlines the sequential approach to the bringing forward of land for development and
details the order in which sites for development should be brought forward: existing buildings;
previously developed land which is well served by a choice of means of transport and is well related
to housing, employment, services and infrastructure; previously developed land in other locations
provided that adequate levels of accessibility could be achieved; and finally greenfield sites in
locations which are, or would be made to be, well served by a choice of transport and well related to
employment, services and infrastructure.
Policy H2 requires the release of land for housing development to be managed in accordance with
the sequential approach set out in Policy ST11.
Policy DP1 of RSS requires economy in the use of land and buildings. It states that development
plans should adopt a sequential approach to meeting housing needs as follows: firstly, the effective
use of existing buildings and infrastructure within urban areas; secondly, the use of previously
developed land; and finally the development of previously undeveloped land, where it would avoid
areas of important open space, is well located in relation to houses, jobs, other services and
infrastructure and is or can be made accessible by public transport, walking or cycling.
Policy DP1 of Draft RSS also encourages the effective use of land, buildings and infrastructure and
advocates the sequential approach to meeting development needs, as outlined in Adopted RSS
Policy DP1.
Planning Policy Statement Note 3: Housing (annex B), provides a definition of previously
development land:
124
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
‘Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure (excluding
agricultural or forestry buildings), and associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition
covers the curtilage of the development. Previously developed land may occur in both built up and
rural settings.’
The whole site is considered to be previously developed land, as defined in Government guidance
such as Annex B of PPS3 (Housing).
The principle of development on the site is therefore considered to be appropriate and established
through the granting of the extant permission. It would accord with the sequential approach to
development, which prioritises the re-use of existing buildings and previously developed land over
the development of greenfield land, as set out in PPS1, PPS3, Policy DP1 of RSS and Policy ST11
the UDP.
Principle of the Proposed Uses
The extant permission has established a the principle of a mixed use scheme. That approval
included retail, leisure and creche development. Therefore, I consider that the principle of these
uses has been established.
Policy MX1 states that Salford Quays will be developed as a vibrant mixed-use area with a broad
range of uses and activities, and development within it will be required to support this.
The whole site falls within the Salford Quays mixed-use area, as defined on the Proposals Map as
MX1/3. The proposal incorporates a broad range of uses and activities, including offices, housing,
live/work units, retail, leisure, hotels, essential infrastructure and support facilities and cultural
uses.
Policy MC:UK 2 of the Draft MediaCity:UK and Quays Point Planning Guidance also makes clear
that a mix of uses will be promoted within the Quays (Media City).
The proposal would provide a total provision of 5,021 sq m of commercial floorspace. The
applicant has not provided any breakdown for each of the proposed uses. Policy S2 ‘Retail and
Leisure Development Outside of Town Centres and Neighbourhood Centres’ and Planning Policy
Statement 6 is relevant in the consideration of retail provision.
Given that the commercial elements of the scheme are speculative and that planning permission has
already been granted for 1,309sq.m. retail use. The purpose of the above policy and guidance is to
provide retail provision in existing centres and that retailing outside of these areas is only
appropriate where it addresses an identified local need. Given that no further information has been
provided regarding the retail provision I consider that it would be appropriate to limited the amount
of A1 retailing to the amount already approved. The applicant has indicated that this would be an
acceptable condition.
This application is therefore considered to be fully consistent with the overall purpose of Policy
MX1, and would help to consolidate Salford Quays as an attractive and successful mixed-use area
forming an integral part of the Regional Centre.
Density
125
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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.
Policy H1 of the UDP states that development should be built at an appropriate density, and that in
the mixed use areas this should not be less than 50 dwellings per hectare. This standard may be
varied in individual circumstances having regard to criteria A-H of the policy. The density of the
proposed development is 1,077 dwellings per hectare. This is a very high density, although given
the sites immediate access to the Metrolink, the need to make the most efficient use of the site, and
responding to the site’s context (which is increasingly characterised by tall, high quality buildings)
I consider that the density is appropriate in principle. However there is a need to ensure that there is
a need for design to be of high quality. The design of the proposal is consider later in this report.
Housing Mix
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.
Policy HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance allows for residential developments within the
Regional Centre to consist wholly of apartments.
Policy HOU7 of the Housing Planning Guidance indicates that such provision should normally be
in the form of social rented accommodation, unless otherwise agreed with the Council.
Planning Guidance for Housing has replaced the draft Housing Supplementary Planning Document
(SPD). The Planning Guidance is expected to be adopted by the Council on the 20th December
2006. The thrust of this guidance is to ensure a balanced mix of accommodation 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. Although the guidance is not part of the development plan for Salford it is a
material consideration.
Policy MC:UK 1 of the Draft MediaCity:UK and Quays Point Planning Guidance states that
innovative approaches to the provision of suitably high density family accommodation should form
part of the mix.
There is a greater emphasis in PPS3 on securing a good mix of housing, including families, and any
approach needs to be evidence-based. Paragraph 21 states, “Key characteristics of a mixed
126
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
community are a variety of housing, particularly in terms of tenure and price and a mix of different
households such as families with children, single person households and older people.”
Para 23 states, “Developers should bring forward proposals for market housing which reflect
demand and the profile of households requiring market housing, in order to sustain mixed
communities. Proposals for affordable housing should reflect the size and type of affordable
housing required.”
Para 24 states, “In planning at site level, Local Planning Authorities should ensure that the
proposed mix of housing on large strategic sites reflects the proportions of households that require
market or affordable housing and achieves a mix of households as well as a mix of tenure and
price. For smaller sites, the mix of housing should contribute to the creation of mixed communities
having regard to the proportions of households that require market or affordable housing and the
existing mix of housing in the locality.”
I consider that the Housing Planning Guidance supports the approach set out PPS 3.
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
residential mix of this scheme is set out below:
184 (15.8%) ‘smart pads’
668 (57.4%) 1 bed studio apartments
284 (24.4%) 2 bed apartments (76 of which would be large two bed apartments)
28 (2.4%) 3 bed apartments
Only 104 (9.3%) of the apartments would be over 57sq m (the 57m2 target set out in the
consultation draft Housing SPD which set a minimum of 50%). Of the total number of dwellings,
73.2% (a total of 852 dwellings) are in the form of studio apartments. The smallest of these are the
‘smart pads’, with some units as small as 22m2, and the majority being 25m2. Additionally, it is
noteworthy that only 2.4% of the dwellings are 3 bed properties.
I do consider that this scheme does incorporate a number of general sustainable development
principles as defined within PPS1 in that the scheme would provide a high density on an
appropriate site, be accessible by a range of public transport and provide a range of uses to promote
vitality and viability. However, the main thrust of the advice relates to ‘communities’ and ensuring
that development provides for sustainable communities.
The increasing dominance of small and very small dwellings in new apartment developments, and
within the Regional Centre in particular, effectively excludes a large proportion of households from
living there. This works against the provision of sustainable communities, instead leading to
increasingly monotonous areas, a lack of social diversity, and households having to move out of
their neighbourhoods as their circumstances change in order to meet their housing needs, the
dominance of small dwellings, and the continuing reduction of dwellings sizes, risks creating a
dangerously skewed residential market within the city, and could work against the provision of
sustainable, mixed communities.
Therefore, I do not consider that the proposed mix of accommodation provides an appropriate
balanced mix of residential accommodation necessary to facilitate a sustainable community. As
127
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
such, I consider that the proposal is contrary to policy H1 of the UDP, The Council’s Housing
Planning Guidance, PPS1 and PPS3.
Affordable Housing
Policy H4 requires that in areas where there is a demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet
local needs, developers will be required, by negotiation with the Council, to provide affordable
housing of appropriate types.
Policy HOU3 of the Councils Housing Planning Guidance requires that on all residential sites over
1 hectare, irrespective of the number of dwellings, or in housing developments of 25 or more
dwellings, 20% of the dwellings should be in the form of affordable dwellings.
Policy HOU4 of the Councils Housing Planning Guidance provides advice on the types of
affordable housing.
Policy HOU5 of the Housing Planning Guidance proposes that affordable housing provided on-site
should be integrated into the rest of the development, and visible differences between tenures of
provision should be minimised, as far as practicable.
As stated above Policy H4 of the UDP requires developers to provide an element of affordable
housing where there is a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs. There is a need citywide for
affordable housing, with an Affordable Needs Assessment showing the need for around 600
affordable units per annum, over the period 2006-16. Amongst other things, this need is a result of
rising house prices to household incomes, an increase in those on the Housing Register, the Right to
Buy scheme, and a decrease in the vacant local authority and RSL stock.
The current stock in the Ordsall ward (which includes Salford Quays) is skewed towards social
rented units as opposed to owner occupation and so in order to address the skewed nature of housing
tenure in the Ordsall ward and provide greater choice, it would be most appropriate for affordable
units to be in the form of intermediate housing. Examples of intermediate housing include shared
ownership and/or shared equity schemes.
In the applicants Supporting Statement (paragraph 3.64) it is stated that “In terms of delivering
affordable homes, there is no demonstrable need for affordable housing in the Salford Quays area
and the previous approval for residential development of the site was not subject to this element of
planning gain. In this context, it is considered that there is no affordable housing required from the
development”.
A full Market Demand Study for Salford was produced in 2003, and the details of its findings in
relation to the need for affordable housing are summerised in paragraph 7.15 of the UDP. It
explains that the study’s “analysis suggested a demand for around 1,000 affordable dwellings from
households currently in need or those likely to fall into need over the next 5 years (to 2008)” (ibid),
which would equate to 200 households per annum. This equates to 38.5% of Salford’s housing
provision figure of 530 dwellings per annum net of clearance.
Moreover, there is evidence that the affordability situation in Salford may have worsened since the
2003 study. Having regard to the increase in the number of people of the Housing Register
(increasing from 8,026 in 2003 to 12,791 in 2006) and utilising an OPDM Housing Needs
128
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Assessment Model, the need for affordable housing could have trebled to as high as 600 dwellings
per annum over the next 10 years.
The Housing Planning Guidance also acknowledges that the a reduced proportion of affordable
housing or lower commuted sum may be appropriate where the development may otherwise
become unviable. Paragraph 5.9 of the guidance states “ In such circumstances, the evidence
provided by the developer should include a financial statement that has been professional certified.
This will be treated on a confidential basis, where appropriate”
The guidance is expected to be adopted by the City Council on the 20th December 2006. This
application was submitted before the adoption of this guidance document which increases the need
and justification for affordable housing from that required by Policy H4 of the adopted plan.
The applicants have confirmed that they do not intend to provide affordable housing as part of their
proposals for this site. They have questioned the evidence to support the need for 20% affordable
housing and have stated that this scheme would be economically unviable with the inclusion of
affordable housing provision. However, no further supporting information or details as to the
economic viability have been provided.
Therefore, without any supporting information to justify the applicants assertion that the scheme
would not be economically viable with the inclusion of affordable housing, I do not consider that
the proposal would accord with the Policy H4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, the
Councils Housing Planning Guidance, PPS1 and PPS3.
Design, Scale and Massing
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 DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to be fully accessible to all people,
maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists to, through and around the site, enable
pedestrians to navigate their way through an area by providing appropriate views, vistas and
transport links, enable safe, direct and convenient access to public transport facilities and other
local amenities and minimise potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
Policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public space,
that public space must be designed to, have a clear role and purpose, responding to established or
proposed local economic, social, cultural and environmental needs, reflect and enhance the
character and identity of the area, form an integral part of, and provide an appropriate setting for,
surrounding developments be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit, be of an appropriate
scale, connect to established pedestrian routes and other public spaces and minimise, and make
provision for, maintenance requirements.
Policy DES4 outlines that development which adjoins public space shall be designed to have a
strong and positive relationship with that space.
Policy DES5 outlines a number of circumstances where tall buildings will be permitted, including:
where the scale of the development is appropriate to its location; the location is highly accessible by
129
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
public transport, walking and cycling; the buildings would positively relate to and interact with the
public realm; the buildings would be of the highest quality, would make a positive addition to the
skyline and would not detract from important views; there would be no unacceptable
overshadowing or overlooking; there would be no unacceptable impact on microclimate,
telecommunications activity, aviation safety, and the development would be consistent with other
UDP policies.
Policy DES6 requires all new development adjacent to Salford Quays to facilitate pedestrian access
to, along and, where appropriate, across the waterway by the provision of a safe, attractive and
overlooked waterside walkway accessible to all at all times, pedestrian links between the waterside
walkway and other key pedestrian routes, and where appropriate, ground floor uses which generate
pedestrian activity. Development will also be required to, where possible, protect, improve or
provide wildlife habitats and conserve and complement any historic features and not affect the
maintenance or integrity of the waterway. Finally, the policy requires all built development along
the Quays to face onto the water, incorporate entrances onto the waterfront where appropriate, be of
the highest standard of design, be of a scale sufficient to frame the edge of the waterside and
enhance views from, of, across and along the waterway.
Policy DES9 states that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and soft
landscaping provision. Where landscaping is required as part of a development, it must be of a high
quality, reflect and enhance the character of the area, not detract from safety and security, form an
integral part of the development, be easily maintained, respect adjacent land uses and wherever
possible make provision for the creation of new wildlife habitats.
Policy DES10 development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime,
anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime.
Policy DES11 requires the submission of a design statement with all major applications explaining
how the development takes account of the need for good design, the design principles and design
concept and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, density, scale, visual appearance
and landscaping, the relationship of the development to its site and the wider context and how the
development will meet the Council’s design objectives.
Policy UR10 of RSS seeks to ensure that strategies are in place for the design, management,
maintenance and enhancement of public realm and urban greenspace. It outlines a number of
priorities, including enhancing the setting of residential neighbourhoods, increasing the overall
stock of urban trees and improving accessibility and community safety.
Policy MC:UK 4 outlines the requirements for the urban form, density and massing withi Media
City and Quays Point. It states that the redevelopment of the site should take a more traditional
urban form than has been typical at the Quays, with dense and compact city blocks, generally eight
to ten storeys in height, punctuated with the occasional high tower, possibly over twenty storeys in
height, at the Broadway end of the site. Areas of public realm should radiate from the waterfront,
with a piazza on the waterfront to Dock 9.
MC:UK8 states that a network of pedestrian and cycle friendly streets will be promoted throughout
Quays Point and Media City which should link to the urban fabric north of Broadway.
130
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The development is split either side of Michigan Avenue with 2 towers rising from each side.
Parking is accommodated within 2 full basement levels. The ground and first floor accommodate
commercial spaces. The split of commercial accommodation is discussed earlier in this report. The
level 2 podium provides semi private amenity space for the residents of the towers. The space
creates a natural buffer between the different use classes and minimise the effects of routing the
services through the lower units.
The identical towers rise with a single core served by 3 number lifts. Refuse chutes have been
provided at each level which drop into holding areas at ground floor. The core have been placed on
the inner facing sides of the towers to reduce loss of light and overlooking. Apartments are located
on the prominent exposed facades adding value and benefiting from panoramic views.
The elevations convey a rhythm between each of the identical towers giving the scheme its own
identity. From the waterside, the towers appear very slender contributing to the notion
permeability. The south elevation consists of full height glazed curtain walling to maximise the
views across the Quays. The outer faces of each twin set of towers adorn projecting glazed screens
offering views and aspect to the North and South. The random rainscreen cladding serves to reduce
the scale of the buildings and introduce further interest.
The podiums are located either side of Michigan Avenue astride the axis of the Detroit Bridge
spanning the Huron Basin and aid permeability through the area. The increase in height over the
NV Buildings will panoramic views South across The Quays. The orientations of the towers relate
to the NV buildings whilst providing linear views off the dock to and from the site. The increase in
height from the NV Buildings will continue to repeat the step up in height from the waterside.
The existing planning consent is essentially 4No residential towers, 2No at 29 storeys and 2No at
21 storeys. The buildings are fanned outwards from the centre. The commercial footplates
accommodate most of the ground floor with perimeter access. The northern elevation
accommodates the servicing and parking.
The current application draws on the positive aspects of the existing consent. Heights have been
rationalized to 4no identical 29 storey (including podium and basements) towers. The towers share
the same orientation to maximise views and reduce overshadowing. The taller tow approved
towers would be 94.15m with the smaller towers 76.16m in height. The overall height (above
ground level) of all four towers in this instance is 88.9m
The design of the podium which provides the commercial elements of the scheme would be
replicated in identical design features for the roof of each tower. The material proposed are
discussed later in this report. I am satisfied with the design, roofline and silhouette of the proposed
towers which will be appropriate when viewed from all directions including long views from
Langworthy Road. I also consider that the design would be a further improvement on than which
has already the benefit of planning permission.
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.
131
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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.
The internal separation distances between the proposed towers A & B and C & D would be 21m
The distance between B & C would increase as these towers would be sited on either side of
Michigan Avenue. The siting of the towers is similar, albeit on a slightly different orientation, than
the previous approval. I consider the size and scale of the four proposed towers to be
complimentary to the scale of redevelopment at this part of Salford Quays. The towers have been
positioned to allow a north-south view along an axis in line with the Detroit Bridge.
The internal relationships of the residential blocks would provide and appropriate level of
separation and privacy in accordance the Councils normal separation distances. The relationship to
existing residents is also considered appropriate and similar to the extant permission.
As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of the
privacy and separation.
Materials
The elevations of the extant permission consist of through colour rendered panels, polished
aluminium and copper cladding. The plinth would be clad in Sandstone with aluminium curtain
walling.
The design of the proposal incorporates a contemporary mix of materials and include the following:
Plinth
Architectural aluminium curtain walling with silicone vertical and horizontal joints.
pre-cast concrete cladding panels – colour: Spanish Dolomite
stainless steel column encasements
Podium
glazed infill panel with stainless steel handrails
hard and soft landscaped podium amenity space with raised bed planting and seating
External faēade
Aluminium curtain walling system with mimic panel. Horizontal silver bullnose cover
caps and silicone vertical joints
Dark grey rainscreen cladding laid in varying depth horizontal bands
Composite PPC windows with internal timber frames
Random pattern coloured metal rainscreen cladding panels
Perforated polished metal vent panels
Sunlight / Shadowing
The principle of four towers on this site has already been established and the impact of shadowing
and sunlight considered acceptable. The two middle towers on this scheme are of a similar height,
albeit smaller, as the middle two towers of the extant permission. The main increase in height
would occur in the outer two towers when compared to the previous scheme.
132
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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 the
Quays by way of loss of sun light and shadowing.
I do not consider that the increase in height of the two outer towers compared to the extant
permission would have any detrimental impact upon the residents of the surrounding properties.
As such I consider that the proposal complies with the adopted development plan in respect of the
sunlight and shadowing.
Conclusion of Design, Scale and Massing
The extant permission establishes a scale of development on this site. However, I consider that the
design and orientation of the scheme as proposed, justifies the increase in height of two of the
proposed towers. As such, I consider that the design, scale and massing of this proposal accords
with the policies highlighted above.
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.
At ground floor the buildings are a regular plan allowing unobstructed views of the site and its
external spaces. The applicant has indicated that formal surveillance (CCTV) and lighting would
be carefully designed to cover higher risk areas such as the main doors, secondary access doors, fire
escapes and parking areas. This could be controlled by appropriate conditions.
Ornamental walls and hedges within the landscaping scheme have been kept to a minimum height
to increase natural survaillance. All residential lobby access doors and parking areas would be
fitted with access control systems.
The Police Architectural Liaison advisor has considered the proposals. The response states “Thank
you for the opportunity to comment on this planning application. You will see from the appendix of
the Planning Statement that this was the subject of a pre planning consultation with this unit and 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.
Trees and Ecology
Policy EN10 states that development which would be likely to have an adverse impact on legally
protected species will only be permitted where mitigation measures are put in place to maintain the
population level of the species at a favourable conservation status within its natural range.
I do not consider that there are any trees of significant amenity value on the site. Moreover, I
consider that the extant permission accepted that the trees on the site would be lost, as such, I do not
consider that there have been any material changes with regard to trees since Members last
considered the redevelopment of this site.
133
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Landscaping
Policy DES9 relates to landscaping and considers that development will be required to incorporate
hard and soft landscaping provision, where appropriate.
MC:UK6 states that within the wider Trafford Wharfside and Salford Quays area outside the Quays
Point site, there will be a continued emphasis on high quality public realm provision.
The scheme would be similar to that already approved. Whilst sum trees would be lost to facilitate
this development there would be an opportunity to provide replacement tress planting around the
podiums at ground level and on top of the podiums within the residential amenity space. The
applicant has expressed their desire to construct a high quality public realm and provide a sense of
place and sense of arrival through incorporating the public realm works with the Metrolink stop.
Subject to the provision of a landscaping scheme to ensure the provision of high quality hard and
soft landscaping I consider that the scheme would accord with the policy highlighted above with
regard landscaping.
Car Parking and Access
Policy A1 requires planning applications for developments which would give rise to significant
transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport assessment
and, where appropriate, a travel plan.
Policy A2 requires development proposals to make adequate provision for safe and convenient
access by the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists through the protection and improvement of key
routes.
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
The 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.
However, the increase in the number of apartments proposed would require the Broadway link to be
provided. Members will recall that the recent approval of the Media City proposal included the
provision of the Broadway link. I am satisfied that sufficient visibility would be provided at the
entrance to the site to safeguard highway safety.
The proposal would provide 543 off street car parking spaces within two full basement levels. The
car parking ratio is at 47% for the residential element of the scheme. Disabled, motorcycle and
cycle parking provided at acceptable ratios in accordance with the polices highlighted above and
could be controlled by way of an appropriate condition. No spaces are designated for the
commercial area.
Cars will enter the basements via separate two way ramps into the Easy (towers A & B) and West
(towers C & D) podiums. Refuse, maintenance and emergency vehicles will enter the site from
Michigan Avenue and turn around using the existing turning head. Servicing of the retail and
134
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
leisure units will be from Michigan Avenue where a loading bay is provided. Infrequent utility
servicing of the HV and LV substations will be via the hard-standing landscaping area off Michigan
Avenue to the north.
The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive has no objection to the proposal in
principle. Members will recall that the previous scheme included that the developer enter into a
section 106 agreement. One of the heads of terms of that agreement required that each residential
unit is supplied with a three month travel pass for buses and Metrolink.
I have discussed this issue with the developer who has agreed in principle to a similar provision
within the any subsequent section 106 agreement.
Given that the site is adjacent to the Metrolink and the design public realm is such to link the tram
stop to the development, I consider that the site is an accessible location. Moreover, subject to the
inclusion of an appropriate legal agreement to secure travel passes for future residents (3 months) I
consider that the scheme accords with the policies highlighted above. However, the Broadway link
would have to be provided should planning permission be granted in this instance and the Media
City application not be implemented.
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 planning application needs to be considered within the context of the Media City Draft
Guidance and will need to reflect amendments that are made prior to adoption. I have provided
standard comments relating to the planning obligations requirements for open space. As this
development will be required to provide a proportionate contribution towards the extensive new
infrastructure requirements for Media City this justifies a degree of flexibility in identifying where
the planning obligations are directed but not withstanding this a significant open space contribution
will need to be provided.
Based on the proposed dwelling mix outlined in the planning application, I calculate there would be
a total of 2484 bed spaces created by this development (28 no. 3bed, 284no. 2bed, 668no. 1bed, and
184 smart-pad dwelling units). Each smart pad is considered to equate to the minimum 1 bed space.
The open space requirements are based on policies H8 and R2 of the Adopted UDP and Policy PO1
of the Draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.
Open Space Financial Contribution
This development would generate 2484 bedspaces, which equates to an open space requirement for
capital provision and 20-year maintenance of:
1.8133ha Sports Pitches
0.6210ha Children's Equipped Playspace / Youth and Adult facilities
0.9936ha Amenity / Informal Open Space
135
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Due to the location and nature of the development (high rise on a relatively small site) it would be
appropriate for the majority of the open space requirement to be provided in the form of a financial
contribution to be directed towards open space recreational improvements within the vicinity of the
development site. The open space financial contributions will be in accordance with Policy PO1 of
the Draft SPD.
The standard open space contribution is £540 per bed space, which includes provision for formal
and informal open space identified in policy R2 of the Adopted UDP and the Greenspace Strategy
SPD and its maintenance over a twenty-year period. The Supporting Statements identify that the
development site will include public squares, landscaped podium terraces and other amenity areas.
These features can be treated as the amenity open space contribution of the development to reduce
the financial contribution by £51 per bed space (£31 capital contribution with an additional £20 per
bed space for maintenance). If maintenance of the amenity space is to be transferred to the city
council this cost (£49, 680) will need to be added to the calculation below.
Therefore the total financial contribution (excluding Amenity Space) would be:
Capital;
Maintenance;
£727, 812 (£293 per bed space x 2484 bed spaces)
£468, 864 (£196 per bed space x 2484 bed spaces)
Total Contribution;
£1, 214, 676 (£489 per bed space x 2484 bed spaces)
It is important that the planning obligation for open space or recreation is directed towards types of
provision (consistent with Policy R2 and priorities in the Greenspace Strategy SPD) that are
relevant to the type, size and location of the development. The majority of this development is not
intended for families, which should be reflected in the type of provision that the open space
contribution is directed towards.
The proportion of the total financial contribution required for sports pitch provision is:
Sports Pitch Provision Capital; £124, 200 (£50 per bed space x 2484 bed spaces)
Sports Pitch Provision Maintenance;
£181, 332 (£73 per bed space x 2484 bed spaces)
The proportion of the financial contribution required for Equipped Play Space/Youth & Adult
Provision is £366 per bed space (£243 capital contribution with an additional £123 per bed space
for maintenance). The contribution for this type of open space should be split to reflect the
proportion of the development that is intended for families. For this development there are 112 bed
spaces from family dwellings and 2372 bed spaces from single person/couple dwellings. The
Equipped Play Space/Youth & Adult Provision financial contribution should be divided as follows:
Equipped Play Space Capital;
Equipped Play Space Maintenance;
Adult Provision Capital;
Adult Provision Maintenance;
£27, 216 (£243 per bed space x 112 bed spaces)
£13, 776 (£123 per bed space x 112 bed spaces)
£576, 396 (£243 per bed space x 2372 bed spaces)
£291, 756 (£123 per bed space x 2372 bed spaces)
In this context Adult Provision embraces a wide range of provision including informal leisure. It
may also be appropriate for a proportion of the Adult Provision contribution to be directed towards
Sports Pitch Provision or to additional Amenity / Informal Open Space.
136
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Proposed Expenditure
In terms of where the open space contribution should be directed there are a number of initial
options to be investigated in accordance with the Greenspace Strategy SPD and URC vision
document within the vicinity of Media City. These could be used as a starting point for discussions
with the Developer:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A Green Access Corridor through Salford Quays, linking the suspension bridge
adjacent to the Lowry Theatre to Weaste Cemetery.
Semi-Natural Greenspace improvements at Weaste Cemetery
Semi-Natural Greenspace improvements at Ordsall Park
Semi-Natural Greenspace improvements along the Manchester Ship Canal / River
Irwell towards the Regional Centre.
Improvements to achieve District Park status at Ordsall Park
New provision at Stowell Memorial Playing Fields – identified as a proposed LEAP
and NEAP
The developer has raised concerns regarding the magnitude of the open space figure as calculated
above. However, subject to further discussion, negotiation and agreement as to where and what
these monies would deliver, the applicant has agreed in principle.
Therefore, at this stage and subject to further negotiation on the location of the proposed provision,
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.
Sustainability Principles
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 sustainability principles:“the development is on a brownfield site of low ecological importance
Avoidance of areas at risk of flooding.
promoting more sustainable forms of transport, including close proximity to the metrolink
station and cycle routes and limiting the number of car parking to approximately 1 space
per 2 residential units.
The development will secure a highly efficient use of space.
Proposed retail and leisure units will provide facilities for existing residents and the
adjacent business district.
The development will attract new residents to the area and their associated skills and
investment.
The Harbour City Development is capable of achieving a ‘Very Good’ EcoHomes rating,
subject to certain commitments and measures being incorporated into the detailed design.”
Other issues
The applicant has commission a report on the potential impact of the development on
telecommunications. The assessment concludes that the scheme is unlikely to have an impact on
137
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
the neighbouring properties and does not recommend any mitigation measures to be included in the
scheme.
CONCLUSION
The increasing dominance of small and very small dwellings in new apartment developments, and
within the Regional Centre in particular, effectively excludes a large proportion of households from
living there. This works against the provision of sustainable communities, instead leading to
increasingly monotonous areas, a lack of social diversity, and households having to move out of
their neighbourhoods as their circumstances change in order to meet their housing needs, the
dominance of small dwellings, and the continuing reduction of dwellings sizes, risks creating a
dangerously skewed residential market within the city, and could work against the provision of
sustainable, mixed communities.
Therefore, I do not consider that the proposed mix of accommodation provides an appropriate
balanced mix of residential accommodation necessary to facilitate a sustainable community. As
such, I consider that the proposal is contrary to policy H1 of the UDP, The Council’s Housing
Planning Guidance, PPS1 and PPS3.
Moreover, without any supporting information to justify the applicants assertion that the scheme
would not be economically viable with the inclusion of affordable housing, I do not consider that
the proposal would accord with the Policy H4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, the
Councils Housing Planning Guidance, PPS1 and PPS3.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed development would not provide an appropriate mix of residential
accommodation and would work against the provision of sustainable, mixed communities
contrary to policy H1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, The Council's Housing
Planning Guidance, Planning Policy Statement 1: Sustainable Development and Planning
Policy Statement 3 : Housing.
2. The proposed development would not provide any affordable housing provision and would
work against the provision of sustainable, mixed communities contrary to policy H4 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan, The Council's Housing Planning Guidance, Planning
Policy Statement 1: Sustainable Development and Planning Policy Statement 3 : Housing.
APPLICATION No:
06/53690/REM
APPLICANT:
PZ Cussons
LOCATION:
Agecroft Commerce Park (Phase 3) Tallyman Way Pendlebury
Swinton
138
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
PROPOSAL:
Details of the siting, design, external appearance of an
industrial unit (Class B2) with ancillary office accommodation
and staff welfare facilities together with associated landscaping,
car and cycle parking, servicing areas and construction of new
and alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site located within the Agecroft Commerce Park (Phase III). The site is
currently vacant. The proposed unit would be located to the south of Agecroft Park Circle. To the
north, east and south of the site are other commercial businesses. To the west is undeveloped. The
application site is part of a larger outline planning permission for B1, B2 and B8 uses. The
applicants PZ Cussons are intending to form their U K headquarters for manufacturing at the
application site and re-locate their existing business.
Consent is sought for details of design, siting, external appearance and landscaping. Means of
access was approved as part of the outline planning permission. The unit would comprise of 7,
200sq m of floor space for industry (B2 – General Industry). This would include a 1, 240sq m of
ancillary office over two floors. The unit would measure 61m X 118m with a height to the eaves of
13m and an overall height of 13.8m. A gatehouse is proposed at the site entrance, this would
measure 5.7m X 4m with a height of 3.5m. A total of 90 car parking spaces would be provided,
including 7 disabled spaces. The proposal would provide 21 cycle spaces. Access to the site would
be from the existing road to the east of the site.
The application has been accompanied by a Planning Statement, Landscape Strategy, Draft Travel
Plan, Survey for Ground Nesting Birds, Site Investigation Report, Gas Monitoring Report and a
report on Japanese Knotweed.
This application relates to Phase I of Plot II. It is proposed to develop the final Phase II in the near
future, which would comprise a manufacturing and distribution centre and research and
development facility. The current application relates to Phase I only and no aspect of Phase II has
been assessed as part of this application or report.
SITE HISTORY
In May 2005, a hybrid application for outline planning permission including Environmental Impact
Assessment was approved for the retention of the existing site remediation and enabling works and
new site infrastructure including roads, landscaping and services and outline application for the
provision of B1, B2 and B8 accommodation. (Ref: 04/48658/HYBEIA)
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency
- No objections but recommend an informative relating to
Sustainable Urban Drainage
Strategic Director of Environmental - No objections but recommends further site investigation and
139
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Services
Greater
Manchester
Police
Architectural Liaison Officer
Greater Manchester Archaeological
Unit
Network Rail
British Waterways Board
G M Passenger Transport Executive
Bury Metro
Natural England
The Open Spaces Society
United Utilities
Lancashire Wildlife Trust
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit
remedial works to contaminated land.
- No objections
- No comments to date
- No comments to date
- No objections
- No objections
- No comments to date
- No comments to date
- No comments to date
- No objections
- No objections
- No comments to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 8th November 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser 9th November 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 Canary Way, Swinton, Salford,
Unit 1 – 18 Lamplight Way, Swinton,
Agecroft Network Centre, Lamplight Way, Swinton,
Securicor Cash Services, Tallyman Way, Swinton,
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters in response to the planning 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: E4/10 – Sites for Employment Development
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
140
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
DES9 – Landscaping
A10 – Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in new developments
DES10 – Design and Crime
EN16 – Contaminated Land
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether issues of contamination have
been taken into account, whether the layout and design of the development is acceptable; whether
the proposed landscaping scheme 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.
Policy E4/10 allocates the application site for office, light industry, general industry, storage and
distribution.
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.
The application site has the benefit of outline planning permission and the current application is a
reserved matters application. The application site is allocated for general industry and office. The
proposed office would be located within the unit and would be ancillary to the main use of the
building. I would therefore consider the principle of development to be acceptable and in
accordance with the above policies.
Design and Layout
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality
and appropriateness of proposed materials.
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.
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.
141
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The proposed building would be of a similar massing and bulk to existing units. It would have a
pitched roof as on similar to surrounding units. The surrounding commercial units comprise of a
mixture of materials from cladding, brick and glass. The adjacent units to the immediate south of
the site are clad. The submitted materials comprise of grey and blue cladding for the roof area and
terracotta and white cladding for the external walls. The entrance to the building would be clad in
terracacotta with a glass canopy. A selection of materials have been submitted as part of the
application and are acceptable, I have attached a condition to ensure the submitted materials form
part of the development to submit the remainder of the materials.
The most prominent elevation from the adjacent roundabout would be the north elevation and the
service yard and foods despatch dock. This elevation would have an element of terracotta tiling. It
is proposed to reduce the land level of the service by approximately 1.5m and raise the existing
landscaped banking around the boundary of the site by 1.5m. The resultant banking would be
approximately 1.3m above the adjacent ground level of the road. This will ensure the service area
would have a limited view from the adjacent highway. I would not consider the proposal to have an
unacceptable impact on the street scene. I consider the proposed design and materials to be
acceptable in this location in accordance with Policy DES1.
As mentioned the application site is surrounded by commercial properties I would therefore not
consider the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in
accordance with DES7.
The proposed landscaping scheme would create an area of green around the whole circumference
of the site excluding accesses. To the north of the site and the area most visible from the
roundabout the landscaping strip would be 17m wide. Along the east boundary the landscape strip
would measure 15m – 6m reducing to approximately 3m wide along the south and west boundaries.
There would be additional areas of planting adjacent to the main access and within the car park. 60
trees would be planted within the scheme with an additional 342 beech trees that would form a
hedge around the site. The planting scheme has been assessed and the proposed choice of planting
and densities are acceptable in accordance with Policy DES9.
The proposed fencing would consist of a 2.3m high weldmesh powder coated fence. The proposed
fence would be powder coated green and would be located to the rear of the proposed landscaping.
The Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer has been consulted and has no
objections to the proposal on crime and design issues in accordance with DES10.
Car Parking and Travel Plans
Adopted Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers,
cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that
the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
The proposed level of car parking for the proposal would consist of a total of 90 car parking spaces,
including 7 disabled spaces and 21 cycle spaces. The maximum level of car parking as set out in
the UDP for the office use would be 120 car parking spaces. The minimum number of disabled
spaces required in accordance with Appendix B of the UDP would be 5 and the minimum number
of cycle spaces would be 3. I would consider this level of parking to be acceptable and in
accordance with policy A10 and have no objections on highway safety grounds.
142
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Policy A1 states that planning applications for developments likely to give rise to significant
transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport assessment
and where appropriate a travel plan.
A traffic assessment was submitted as part of the outline planning permission and it was considered
that that the surrounding road network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase in
traffic, which would be generated as a result of this application without having a detrimental impact
on highway safety. A draft travel plan has been submitted with the application, it has been assessed
and additional information is required before I discharge this condition. I would therefore consider
the proposal to be in accordance with Policy A1.
Other Issues
Policy EN16 states that proposals on sites known or thought to be contaminated will require the
submission of a site assessment as part of the planning application. Remedial measures agreed, as
part of any planning permission will be required to be completed at the first step of any
development.
The submitted Design and Access statement discusses the use of sustainable building techniques.
These would include heat and waste water recovery systems, energy saving features including
natural ventilation and intelligent lighting.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The scheme was discussed and advice given at pre-application stage. Improvements include the
reduction of the land level within the service yard area.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development is already established. I
consider the proposed design and layout and landscaping to be acceptable in this location, I am
satisfied that the conditions will ensure that contaminated land is dealt. The application accords
with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and there are no material
considerations, which outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be
approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Unless otherwise agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development hereby
approved, samples and details of the materials for the external elevations and roof of the
industrial unit and gatehouse 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.
143
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing no development shall be commenced unless and until a
scheme detailing all the following matters including; sustainable construction techniques;
natural ventilation techniques; techniques to reduce solar heat gain and use of renewable
energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability matters have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the occupation of the approved
scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be retained and maintained.
3. Within one week prior to the commencement of development the site shall be inspected for the
presence of ground nesting birds in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted
report "Assessment for the Potential for Ground Nesting Birds" dated 8th December 2006.
Should nesting birds be discovered, the nests shall remain undisturbed until after the birds have
fledged.
4. Prior to first occupation the car parking within the site shall be laid out in accordance with the
details shown on drawing no. 06020 PL01 A and shall be made available at all times
5. Prior to first occupation the cycle storage shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted
plan Drawing No 12388 PL10 and available for use at all times.
6. Within 12 months of commencement of development the site shall be treated in accordance
with the landscape scheme as detailed on the submitted plan Drawing No. 2488/01 and 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.
7. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the colour of the fencing hereby
approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
fencing shall be powder coated in the approved colour prior to installation and shall be
maintained as such thereafter.
8. Prior to first occupation of the unit 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 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
2. In order to provide recycling facilities in accordance with policy EN17aof the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
3. In order to protect nesting birds in accordance with Policy EN10 of the City of Salford Unitary
144
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage
5. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes, in accordance with Policy
A10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
6. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
7. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
8. 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.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. 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
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
3. Please note Condition encompasses all works undertaken on site including the removal of and
validation of clean imported material to site.
4. Please note the planning permission relates to the following plans:
Drawing No.
2488/01
2488/02
06020-PL01 A
06020-PL03 B
06020.PL04 B
06020-PL05
06020-PL06
06020-PL07 A
12388 PL10
APPLICATION No:
06/53757/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Cohen And Mr Canton
145
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
LOCATION:
11 And 13 Stanley Road Salford M7 4EG
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension and construction of
dormer extension in roof space at rear of 13 Stanley Road and
the bricking up of two windows on the side elevation and
insertion of two additional window openings on the rear
elevation of 11 Stanley Road
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a semi-detached property on Stanley Road in Salford 7
The property has an existing single storey extension along the common boundary with 15 Stanley
Road.
The proposal is for the erection of a two-storey side extension and construction of dormer extension
in the roof space at the rear of dwelling. The two-storey side extension would accommodate a
hallway, utility and kitchen on ground floor and two bedrooms, laundry room and bathroom on the
frits floor. The dormer will accommodate two bedrooms and a wc.
The two-storey side extension would be situated 1m from the common boundary with 11 Stanley
Road. It would project 4.3m from the side of the property, would be 14.5m in length and would be
3m in width at the rear. The first floor element would be set back by 2m from the front elevation.
Two velux windows would be installed in the roof of the proposed side extension.
The proposed rear dormer would be situated approximately 0.5m from the common boundary with
15 Stanley Road and would project 2.3m from the roof of the property. It would measure 7.5m in
width and 1.8m in height with a flat roof.
SITE HISTORY
There are two relevant planning applications relating to this site.
Planning permission for the erection of two storey side extension and construction of dormer
extension in roofspace at rear of dwelling was refused permission in August 2006 (Ref:
06/53006/HH) on the grounds that the two storey side extension, by virtue of its size and siting,
would have an unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing impact on the neighbouring residents
living at 11 Stanley Road, contrary to Policy DES7 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan, and
HE4 of Supplementary Planning Document - House Extensions.
A re-submission of planning application 06/53006/HH was submitted in August 2006
(Ref:06/53390/HH) again for the erection of two-storey side extension and construction of dormer
extension in roofspace at rear of dwelling. This application was reported to panel on 5th October
2006. The application was refused at panel on the grounds that the two storey side extension, by
virtue of its size and siting, would have an unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing impact on
146
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
the neighbouring residents living at 11 Stanley Road, contrary to Policy DES7 of the Salford
Unitary Development Plan, and HE4 of Supplementary Planning Document - House Extensions.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
4 Stanley Road
6 Stanley Road
8 Stanley Road
9 Stanley Road
15 Stanley Road
12 Hanover Gardens
14 Hanover Gardens
REPRESENTATIONS
No objections have been received to the planning application publicity
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
DES1-Respecting context
DES7-Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8-Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application is whether the proposal would seriously injure
the amenity of existing residential properties.
Policy DES1 of the Adopted UDP 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 the character of streets, impact on views, scale and the quality and appropriateness of
proposed materials.
Policy DES7 of the Adopted UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would
have an adverse impact upon the occupiers or users of other developments in the vicinity or an
unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Policy DES8 of the Adopted UDP states that permission to extend, or alter an existing building will
only be permitted if it respects the general scale, character and proportions of the existing building
and compliments the surrounding area.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) House Extensions was adopted on the
19th July 2006. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards
maintained when determining householder applications.
147
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Policy HE10 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions states that
planning permission will not be normally be granted for the erection of dormers and alterations to
the roof unless their impact on the street scene can be significantly reduced through appropriate
design and sitting. The proposed dormers would be set in from the eaves and lower than the ridge of
the roof. The habitable room windows of the dormer would not be visible from the street scene and
would not project any closer to the property at the rear than the existing rear habitable room
window. I consider it would not affect the character of the street scene or generate any unacceptable
detrimental overlooking impact to the neighbouring residents.
Policy HE8 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions states that
planning permission would not normally be granted for a two storey side extension that lies within
1m of the side boundary of the dwelling unless the first floor element is set back a minimum of
2.0m from the front main wall of the house. The first floor element of the proposed two-storey side
extension would be within 1m of the common boundary with the adjacent dwelling 11 Stanley
Road. It would be set back 2.0m from the front wall of the property this is in accordance with policy
HE8.
Policy HE1 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions states that
planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that do not maintain a minimum
distance of 21m between facing principal windows of habitable rooms and a minimum distance of
10.5m between the principal window of any habitable room of the proposed extension and the
common boundary with the facing property. The habitable room windows of the proposed
two-storey side extension are located at the front and rear elevations. The distance between the
proposed habitable room windows at the rear and 14 Hanover Gardens would only be 15m. I
consider the separation distance is acceptable, as the proposed extension would not project any
closer to the rear than the existing habitable room windows in property. The 2.5m high wooden
panels situated on the rear common boundary would screen the ground floor habitable room
window in the rear elevation. There would be more than 21m between the front of the proposed
extension and the property opposite at 8 Stanley Road; this is in accordance with policy HE1. I
consider the proposal would not have any unacceptable detrimental overlooking impact to the
surrounding residents.
The adjacent property 11 Stanley Road contains a principal habitable room window on the first
floor and second floor in the side elevation at the gable of the property.
Policy HE4 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions states that
planning permission will not normally be granted for a two storey or first floor extension that does
not maintain a minimum distance of 13m between a blank gable end wall and principal habitable
room windows. The side elevation of the adjacent dwelling 11 Stanley Road contains two principal
habitable room windows, these would face the blank gable of the proposed two-storey extension.
The current relationship between the principal habitable room windows in the gable of 11 Stanley
Road and the application property is approximately 6m. This separation distance is contrary to
policy HE4, which requires a distance of 13m. However the houses were built well before the
introduction of the SPD on House Extensions. The proposed two-storey side extension would
reduce this distance to 3.0m between the proposed side extension and the two habitable room
windows at 11 Stanley Road. Following the previous refusal of planning consent, the applicant has
sought to overcome the harm that would be caused by the proposal on the amenity of the occupiers
of 11 Stanley Road. The application includes insertion of one additional window in the rear
148
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
elevation of 11 Stanley Road, which would allow more light into the first floor bedroom and
become the primary habitable room window and the insertion of a velux roof light on the second
floor, which would allow more light into the second floor bedroom. I consider that the insertion of
these windows would address the previous reason for refusal and would then comply with SPD
Policy HE4 and adopted UDP Policy DES7
CONCLUSION
The proposal accords with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions
and policies DES7 and DES8 of the Adopted UDP. I consider the design of the proposed extension
to be acceptable and I am also satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable
adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of overlooking or loss of
privacy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed 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 proposed extension at 13 Stanley Road shall not be occupied until the additional first and
second floor bedroom windows at 11 Stanley Road have been installed in accordance with the
approved plans.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
APPLICATION No:
06/53791/FUL
APPLICANT:
William Smart
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 14 Vauban Drive Salford M6 8ET
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a detached bungalow (resubmission of previous
planning application 06/53042/FUL)
149
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the side garden of the semi detached dwelling house No.14 Vauban Drive
in Salford. Vauban Drive is a cul de sac and the application site is located on the northern side of the
Drive at the end of the cul de sac. Adjoining properties are all residential and two storey.
The application proposal is for the erection of a detached bungalow in the side garden of No.14
Vauban Drive. Access to the site would be from Vauban Drive via a shared driveway with No. 14.
A detached garage in the garden of No.14 would be demolished to accommodate a new driveway to
the proposed bungalow. There are a number of trees and mature shrubs along the boundaries of the
site. The applicant has stated that no trees will be felled as a result of this proposal.
SITE HISTORY
The previous scheme (06/53042/FUL) was refused by panel on the
21.9.2006 because the proposed development would have a detrimental
impact on highway safety by virtue of inadequate parking provision
and manoeuvring space within the site. The proposal would be contrary
to City of Salford Unitary Development Plan Policy A10.
CONSULTATIONS
Head of Engineering and Highways – No Objections
Environmental Services – No Comments
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No Comments
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
30-38 Victoria Road (Evens)
9-12 Vauban Drive (All)
16 Vauban Drive
14 Fairhope Avenue
2 Acacia Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received four letters of objection to the proposal from nearby residents. The following issues
were raised:
The impact the development will have on the peaceful nature of the cul-de-sac.
Further building on the cul-de-sac would be purely for financial gain at the expense of the
environment.
Increased problem of parking due to current restrictions and increase in volume of traffic
using the cul-de-sac causing issues of highway safety.
Danger of vehicles reversing into and out of the driveway causing issues of highway safety
especially to children.
150
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The creation of a parking space in the driveway blocking emergency vehicles accessing the
new property.
Loss of wildlife in gardens to the rear of the properties on Victoria Road and the other
cul-de-sacs off Wilton Road.
Contrary to Policy EN10 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Problems with drain blockages in the area
The development being contrary to the provisions of Policy ST11 in that it does not adopt
the sequential approach.
Adequate supply of existing two bedroom housing
Reduction of garden space for 14 Vauban Drive
Inability for Number 14 Vauban Drive to be extended making it less attractive to future
occupiers
The application is based on elderly occupants
I have received one letter of objection from Councillor Ainsworth. The following issues have been
raised:
Objection to the principle of backland development, which sets a precedent for high
density development.
Inadequate vehicle manoeuvring space
Loss of privacy to the adjoining property, number 12 Vauban Drive due to the
proposed parking
Inadequate on street parking
The property having no levelled access making it difficult for the elderly
A series of suggested conditions:
1.) The front door of the proposed dwelling should face number 14 to allow better
manoeuvring around the site.
2.) The entrances should all be of level access
3.) A turning circle should be provided within the site and should be subject to an
agreement that it shall at no time be obstructed
4.)That the tenure of the bungalow should be owner occupation
5.)That the bungalow should be occupied by a person aged 60 or over with a partner
aged 55 or over.
6.) Removal of permitted development rights
7.) Boundary treatment to be provided and maintained to the boundary with
number 12 Vauban Drive.
8) Condition requiring prior approval of any schemes of lighting to the exterior of the
building
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 - Provision of car, cycle and motorcycle parking in
new developments
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
151
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposal is
acceptable; whether the proposal would seriously injure the amenity of existing residential
properties, whether there would be an unacceptable impact on the street scene and whether there
would be any highway safety issues.
Principle
Policy H1 states new housing should contribute to a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area
and provide a high quality residential environment with an adequate level of amenity. The area is
predominantly residential with a mix of detached, semi-detached, terraced properties and it is
considered that the proposed bungalow would contribute to the mix of dwelling types in the area.
The development would see the re-use of brownfield land as defined within Planning Policy
Guidance Note 3 – Housing (PPG3), which seeks to prioritise the development of such land over
land that has not been previously developed (greenfield land) and to secure the more efficient use of
land.
I am therefore of the opinion the principle of the proposal is acceptable.
Amenity
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The bungalow would be sited within the side garden of 14 Vauban Drive. The site is adjoined on all
sides by existing residential properties. The bungalow would be sited 8m a way from the side wall
of the applicant's property at 14 Vauban Drive. The bungalow would be constructed in brick with a
pitched roof. All accommodation would be at ground floor level only with no accommodation
proposed in the roof space. Habitable room windows are proposed on the front and rear elevation of
the bungalow. The distance to properties at the rear of the site in Victoria Road is 26m to the main
rear wall and 21m to the rear outrigger. There would be 7.6m between the rear wall of the bungalow
and the rear boundary of the site adjoining the rear of properties in Victoria Road. I am of the
opinion that the proposal would not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the occupants of the
properties in Victoria Road.
The residential property to the north of the site, 16 Acacia Drive, is over 25m away and would not
be affected by this proposal. The distance between the front elevation of the bungalow and the
boundary of the site with 12 Vauban Drive would be 6.5m. There are no habitable room windows
on the side elevation of 12 Vauban Drive facing towards the proposed bungalow, and the boundary
between the two properties is screened by mature shrubbery and a 1.5m high fence. I am therefore
satisfied that the proposal will not have any significant adverse impact on the amenity of the
occupants of this property. In order to protect the amenity of adjoining residents from any potential
future extensions to the bungalow I recommend that a condition removing permitted development
rights for development within the curtilage of the resulting dwelling is imposed.
The proposal includes sufficient private amenity space to the rear and parking within the curtilage
of the site. I consider the scheme to be acceptable in terms of providing future occupiers with a
satisfactory level of amenity without having an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties
which complies with DES7.
152
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Design
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality
and appropriateness of proposed materials
Access to the bungalow would be via a shared driveway with 14 Vauban Drive. A detached garage
would be demolished to accommodate the new driveway. Adjacent to the garage and the side
boundary of the site is a mature oak tree however this is not considered worthy of protection by a
Tree Preservation Order. The applicant has stated that no trees will be felled as a result of this
proposal. No details have been submitted to indicate how this tree will be protected when the
garage is demolished and the new driveway is constructed. It is therefore recommended that a
condition is imposed requiring that a method statement is submitted to show how this tree will be
protected when these works are carried out. The proposal includes curtilage parking and private
amenity space for the future occupants. I have attached a condition requiring samples of materials
to be submitted for approval. Due to the location of the application site at the end of the cul de sac
the proposed bungalow would only be visible when viewed from the head of the cul de sac and I
therefore consider the proposal will not have any adverse impact on the character of the area or the
street scene. I therefore consider the proposal complies with policy DES1.
Car Parking
Policy A10 states that the maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded and that parking
should be provided to adequate levels of safety and security. The proposed bungalow would be
provided with 1 car parking space, and the existing property would retain three car parking spaces
within its curtilage. The proposed bungalow would utilise the existing access which is used by the
occupiers of No.14 Vauban Drive, which would become a shared access for both properties. The
access arrangements would allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. I do not
consider that the use of this access by one additional dwelling will have an adverse impact on
highway safety in the area. I therefore have no highway safety objections.
Other Issues
An objector has raised numerous issues, one of which being the car parking provision on the site.
The applicant has amended the previous scheme to demonstrate adequate car parking space and the
ability to manoeuvre vehicles within the site to enter and leave in a forward gear. I have no highway
safety objections.
The objector also raises the issue of backland development being inappropriate, however,
the proposal is in accordance with privacy and separation distances normally applied.
Issues were also raised regarding the dwelling to only be occupied by the elderly, however,
I do not consider that the application is specifically for elderly persons accommodation and
therefore cannot be controlled to this end.
It was suggested that permitted development rights should be removed from both the
proposed bungalow and 14 Vauban Drive, however, this is unreasonable as number 14
does not form part of the application site, I consider it is acceptable to remove some
Permitted Development Rights from the proposed bungalow within the Classes A,B,C and
E of Part 1 Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended).
153
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The issues of entering and leaving the proposal site in a forward gear has been addressed
and the scheme sufficiently amended.
I consider that some of the conditions which are proposed by the objector do not comply with the
six tests for conditions set out in circular 10/95 in that they are unenforceable and unreasonable.
I received four letters of objection to the proposal. The issues raised relating to traffic generationa
re acknowledged however I do not consider the amount of traffic generated by the development
would be significant enough to affect residential amenity in the area. In addition the issue of car
parking and reversing onto and off the driveway has been addressed by adequate amendment to
create more parking and manoeuvring space within the curtilage of the site.
The objectors raised the issue of loss of wildlife due to the development however the site is not a
designated wildlife site, nor does it provide a habitat for any protected species. It is considered that
there would not be significant detriment to the local environment.
A number of points were raised in relation to the occupation and potential to extend number 14
Vauban Drive in the future. This is not considered to be a material planning consideration, nor is the
future marketability of nearby properties should the development be permitted. The objector makes
reference to the application being specifically for elderly people, however this is not the case as the
proposal is for a bungalow and the tenure is not specified or conditioned to be for occupation by the
elderly only.
Policy ST11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that a sequential test is followed
when assessing developments for new housing. The objector identifies that the proposal is in
discordance with Policy ST11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan in that development
should be located on previously developed land as opposed to Greenfield, however the site being
within the garden curtilage of number 14 Vauban Drive this is classed as brownfield land. The site
is also accessible by foot, bicycle and bus to the centre of Eccles. Although the development does
not result in the re-use of an existing building building which is the first option within ST11, it is
considered that the development would be in accordance with option two of the sequential
approach, and would fit well into its environment resulting in a sustainable development.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The applicant has amended the scheme to address the issue of highway safety which was the reason
for the previous refusal.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the siting of the proposed bungalow
to be acceptable and that it would not have any unacceptable
detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby residential properties
in terms of overshadowing, overlooking or loss of privacy. I am of
the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of
the Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations which
outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be
approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
154
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
date of this permission.
2. Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, samples of the materials for the
external elevations and roof of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials,
unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
3. No development shall commence unless and until a arboricultural method statement specifying
how the drive will be constructed in the vicinity of the oak tree has been submitted and
approved in writing by the Locsal Planning Autority. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved method statement.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (and any subsequent amending order), there
shall be no development within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved as defined in Part
1 Class A,B,C and E of Schedule 2 of the above Order without the prior grant of planning
permission by the Local Planning Authority.
5. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for boundary treatment to the boundary
with 14 Vauban Drive shall first be submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development hereby
approved and maintained thereafter.
6. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking spaces and shared
driveway are laid out according to the approved plans and made available for use by the
bungalow hereby approved and number 14 Vauban Drive.
7. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking spaces and shared
driveway are laid out according to the approved plans and made available for use by the
bungalow hereby approved and number 14 Vauban Drive.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. In order to safeguard the amenity of the residents, in accordance with Policy DES7 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. In the interests of protecting the residential amenity of the occupiers of number 12 Vauban
Drive and to accord with Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
155
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
6. In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy DES1 of the City of Salford
Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
APPLICATION No:
06/53827/COU
APPLICANT:
Donnelly Building Services
LOCATION:
Land Facing 35 Cobden Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of former vehicle storage yard to inert waste
recycling facility together with the erection of a portable office
building, 3 storage bays, insertion of roller shutters to the
Kingston Mill building and the creation of a new car park.
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a disused yard and associated brick
warehousing units on Cobden Street. It is proposed to change the use
of the yard and warehouse buildings from B2 industrial/warehousing
units to a sui generis aggregate recycling facility. In order to
facilitate the proposed change of use a series of building operations
will take place including the insertion of roller shutter doors into
the Kingston House warehousing units, the demolition of two single
156
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
storey units at 52 Cobden Street, the laying our of a car park, the
erection of a portable building which will function as a site office,
the creation of a series of storage bays and the erection of wooden
boarding behind the existing palisade fencing that runs along the
boundary with Kingston Mill. The facility would be open 7am until 6pm
Monday to Friday and 8am until 5pm on Saturdays and Sundays. In total
5 members of staff would be employed at the centre.
It is anticipated that 20 heavy goods vehicles will visit the site on a daily basis, delivering
demolition spoil which contains mixed loads of bricks, soil and concrete. Upon receipt the spoil
will be screened using a mobile power screener, which sieves the mix separating soils from the
solid materials such as concrete. The soils produced will be stored awaiting resale as recycled
topsoil for use in garden landscaping. The solid materials will be transferred into a stockpile before
being processed in the brick crusher. Once crushed the graded product will be stored and sold for
use in new construction projects.
The disused Manchester to Bury and Bolton Canal lies to the north of the site. The land to the east is
occupied by the Kingston Mill building and associated car park. The land to the south is occupied
by a series of industrial and commercial units and the land to the west is occupied by Salford Skip
Hire. The nearest residential properties are located 160m to the south east of the site.
SITE HISTORY
An application for the change of use of the land opposite 35 Cobden Street was refused in April
2006 on the basis that “Insufficient details have been submitted to enable the full implications that
the proposed development would have on the visual amenity of the area, the regeneration of the
Manchester-Bolton Canal, and the criteria contained in policy W1 of the Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Plan to be assessed” (ref 05/51507/COU).
CONSULTATIONS Network Rail – No comments to date
British Waterways – No objections
Environment Agency – No comments to date
Greater Manchester Geological unit –No comments to date
New Deal for Communities – Objecting on the basis that the proposal does not fit in with the
overall vision for this Gateway site as the proposal would hinder the development of residential
properties in the area in the future. They also feel that the proposal would create problems with
traffic generation and noise pollution.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – No comments to date
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No comments to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
31 to 37 (odd) Cobden Street
62 Cobden Street
157
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Kingston Mill, Cobden Street (inc units 1A to 1D, J Hulme, Linfoss engineering, PG
Fabrications)
PA Fencing, Arch A, Land to the rear of 37 Cobden Street
RH Watson, Arch B, Land to the rear of 37 Cobden Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised –
Noise pollution
Dust
Cobden Street already houses a number of waste transfer stations.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
EQ5 A Regional Approach to Waste Management
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY FOR THE NORTH WEST
EM11 Waste Management Principles
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: W1 - Waste Management
ST11 – Location of New Development
DES1 - Respecting Context
DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN17 Pollution Control
CH7 Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the use, the impact the
proposed use would have on living conditions and amenity of neighbouring users, and the impact
that the proposed development would have on the highway network.
Principle of use
Policy ST11 of the adopted UDP advocates a sequential approach to development with sites
involving the reuse and conversion of existing buildings been the preferred location of
development, followed by previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
This application relates to an existing storage yard and a series of
industrial/warehousing units on Cobden Street. The site is previously
developed and therefore the proposals to use the site for the site
158
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
for the processing of aggregates is in accordance with Policy ST11
as it involves the reuse of an existing yard and associated buildings.
Policy EQ5 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West states
that there should be increased re-use and recycling of household,
commercial and industrial waste.
Draft Policy EM11 of the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the North
West states that proposals should promote more effective forms of
waste management.
Policy W1 of the adopted UDP encourages proposals that recycle waste and conserve resources.
In principle the proposal to develop the site as an aggregate recycling facility should be welcomed
as it allows recycling and reuse of metals thus allowing for the conservation of natural resources.
Amenity of the area Policy W1 states that planning permission will be granted for development involving waste
management unless proposals would have an adverse impact upon health, residential amenity or the
amenity of other environmentally sensitive users or proposals would have an unacceptable impact
upon the highway network in terms of access, traffic generation, safety and the free flow of traffic.
Policy CH7 relates to the Manchester, Bolton and Bury canal and it states that development that
would prejudice the reinstatement of the canal or its towpath will not be permitted.
The processing and storage of materials both processed and unprocessed would, in part, take place
outside of the units. With regards to the acceptability of operating an aggregate recycling facility of
this type, in this location the site to which the application relates is located within an industrial area,
surrounded by other industrial and commercial uses. There are no residential properties within the
vicinity of the site, nor are there any other environmentally sensitive land users. The adopted UDP
does not allocate any site within the vicinity of the application site for any sensitive uses such as
residential. There is however a gym and associated car park located within the adjacent Kingston
Mill site. It is proposed to erect wooden boarding adjacent to the existing 2.5m high palisade
fencing along the boundary with the Kingston Mill car park in order to screen the stockpiles and
prevent material and dust being transferred from the site onto neighbouring land. The disused
Manchester to Bolton and Bury Canal runs to the rear of the site. At present a 2.4m high palisade
fence marks the rear boundary of the site. It is proposed to retain this fence and therefore the
proposed aggregate recycling facility would not be located within any closer proximity to the canal
and its towpath than the existing use. It is proposed to erect a series of 3m high storage bays out of
roof support joists and railway sleepers. These would screen any stockpiles and ensure that the
proposed development would not prevent the reinstatement of the Manchester to Bolton and Bury
Canal or its towpath.
The proposed development is therefore in accordance with Policies W1 and CH7 of the Adopted
UDP.
Turning to the works proposed in order to facilitate the proposed use.
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical
159
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
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.
It is proposed to erect a steel portable building to the front of the site in order to create a site office.
The proposed portable building would be set back approx. 1m from the site boundary. The footprint
of the building would be approx. 8m by 4m. I do not have full details of the proposed portable
building however I am satisfied that it will be possible to erect a structure to act as a site office that
would not have an adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the area given that the proposed
portable building would be partially screened by the existing 2.4m high palisade fencing that runs
along the front boundary of the site. It is also proposed to insert two roller shutter doors into the
eastern elevation of the existing Kingston House warehousing units. These roller shutter doors
would not be colour treated. Given the nature of the area and the quality of the existing urban fabric
both on site and in the vicinity of the site I do not have any objections to the proposed portable
building or the proposed roller shutters as their introduction would not have an adverse impact upon
the visual amenity of the area.
Car Parking and Highways
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists.
At present parking is provided on an area of hardstanding located to the rear of the units at 52
Cobden Street. This area is not formally laid out. Details of the proposed parking layout have not
been provided with the application however the area is, in my opinion, sufficient to ensure adequate
car parking could be provided for the proposed use which would employ 5 members of staff. I do
not therefore have any objections to the proposed development on highway safety grounds.
With regards to the impact that the proposed development would have on the highway network and
the concerns expressed by New Deal, I do not consider that the vehicle movements associated with
the proposed metal processing plant would be comparable to those associated with a B2 light
industrial/warehouse unit. Consequently I am of the opinion that the proposed change of use would
not have an adverse impact upon the functioning of the highway network in the vicinity of the site.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposal would contribute to sustainable waste management as advocated by Policy
EQ5 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the North West and Policy W1 of the adopted UDP all of
which seek to encourage higher recycling rates and the conservation of natural resources.
The site is situated in an existing industrial and commercial area where there are no residential
properties or environmentally sensitive land users. The proposed development would therefore
have minimal impact on the local population and the environment. The proposal is therefore
consistent with policy W1 of the adopted UDP and therefore I recommend that the application be
approved subject to the following conditions.
160
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The use hereby permitted shall only be operated between the hours of 7.00am and 6.00pm on
Mondays to Fridays and 8:00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and Sundays.
3. There shall be no open storage on site except within the confines of the bays shown on plan
DBS 02. Materials stored within the bays shall not exceed the highest part of the bay.
4. There shall be no burning on the site at any time.
5. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the location, height design and
construction of the site office shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local
Planning Authority. The proposed office shall be constructed in accordance with the approved
details and shall be retained in such a conidtion therafter unless agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
6. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use a revised parking layout with a
minimum of 5 car parking spaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The car parking layout agreed shall be marked out and hardsurfaced to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use of the recycling facility hereby
approved.
7. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the location, height and design of
the crusher and the screener shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local
Planning Authority. The proposed crusher and screener shall be constructed in accordance
with the approved details and shall be retained in such a conidtion therafter unless agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
6. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
7. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
161
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
162
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
APPLICATION No:
06/53536/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Dukesgate Primary School
LOCATION:
Dukesgate Primary School Earlesdon Crescent Little Hulton
M38 9HF
PROPOSAL:
Advertisment consent for a flag and erection of a flagpole
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a primary school. Consent is sought display a flag advertising the
School’s Eco Award accolade and to erect a flagpole.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
16 to 28 Earlesdon Crescent
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letter of objection regarding the height of the flagpole.
PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE
PPG19 – Outdoor Advertisement Control
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV2 - Advertisements
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the flag is acceptable in terms of
public amenity and safety, and whether the flag pole would have any impact on the street scene.
PPG19 states that in assessing advertisements, regard must be had to public amenity and safety.
DEV2 reiterates this and states that advertisements would be required, amongst other criteria: to be
of a size and scale consistent with their surroundings; respect the sensitivity of the location; and
avoid signage clutter.
163
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The flag itself would promote the School’s eco award and would measure 2.17m v 1.44m. The
proposed flagpole would measure 8m in height and would be located 5.5m from the existing
boundary fence to the front adjacent to the main entrance.
In response to the objection, the applicants have set the flagpole a metre further back than was
previously proposed, in order to reduce any visual impact on the occupants of 23 Earlesdon
Crescent. To the front of the school there is an existing entrance sign along the entrance of the
school measuring approximately 4m in height. There are also existing street lamps in the area,
approximately 6m in height. Although taller than the current street furniture in the area, I am
satisfied that the proposed flagpole, being of a slimline construction, would not have a detrimental
impact on the visual amenity of the area. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the flag would not create
signage clutter and that the flag and flagpole would be appropriate development for the location.
The flagpole would be set within the school grounds and would therefore I have no objections on
highways grounds.
CONCLUSION
The proposed application would not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the street scene, or
on highway safety and therefore complies with policies DEV2 of the UDP and PPG19. The
proposal is therefore recommended for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. (a) Any advertisements, displayed, and any land used for the display of advertisements, shall
be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority.
(b) Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying
advertisements shall be maintained in a safe condition.
(c) Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the removal
shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
(d) No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any
other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.
(e) No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to obscure, or hinder the ready
interpretation of, any road traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water, or air, or so
as otherwise to render hazardous the use of any highway, waterway (including any coastal
waters) or aerodrome (civil or military).
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed by Regulation 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning
(Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992.
164
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The permission relates to plans submitted on the 27th November 2006.
APPLICATION No:
06/53808/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing And Planning Directorate
LOCATION:
Alley To Rear Of 62-64 Peel Lane And 35-37 Peel Park
Crescent Little Hulton M38 0BS
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.2m alley gates
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the erection of alley gates to either end
of the alley which runs to the side of 62 and 64 Peel Lane and 35 to
37 Peel Park Crescent. The alleyway is approximately three metres in
width at its entrance however this width decreases along the length
due to overgrown trees and shrubs and becomes difficult to pass
through. The alleyway currently connects Peel Lane and Peel Park
Crescent and passes to the rear of 1-11 Tadmor Close. The alley is
highly concealed and at present provides a hiding place and an escape
route for those wishing to commit criminal activity. The site is
surrounded by residential semi-detached houses and the properties
which are most affected are those on Tadmor Close and 62 and 64 Peel
Lane and 35 and 37 Peel Park Crescent. The proposed alley gates are
2.2 metres in height at their highest point and are a railing design
with pointed finials. It is proposed that the gates are painted black
with gold coloured finials. The design of the gates is such that they
have no central horizontal elements. Each resident who requires
access to the alley will be provided with a key.
165
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
CONSULTATIONS
The Open Spaces Society – No response to date
The Ramblers Association (Manchester and High Peak Area) – Objection- the following comments
were made:
‘The gates would obstruct a useful link between the two roads. Needless to say, erection of these
gates without a HWA order would constitute an illegal obstruction of the highway.’
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No Response to Date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 21.11.06
A Press notice was published on the 23.11.06
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 11 Tadmor Close (Odds)
62 and 64 Peel Lane
35 and 37 Peel Park Crescent
60 and 62 Peel Park Crescent
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: Policy DES10 – Design and Crime
Policy A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
Policy DC18 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and
Crime’
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the visual impacts of the development on
the street scene and the need for the development in order to reduce the occurrence of crime and
anti-social behaviour, and the closure of a route between Peel Lane and Peel Park Crescent.
Policies A2 and DES10 take into account the safety and accessibility of the existing public rights
of way.
First, the impacts, which the development would have on the streetscene, are considered to be
minimal. The gates are of a sympathetic design and would not be out of place within the local area.
Policy DES10 requires development needed for security purposes to be of a good quality overall
design, and not to create concealed spaces where criminal activity could occur. The gates would
remain a visually permeable feature which would afford views along the alleyway when they are
closed. This helps to reduce the number of concealed spaces in which criminal activity could occur.
Policy DC18 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’ requires that
alleygates are designed to a high standard and where possible to not feature horizontal elements
which may aid scaling. It is considered that in seeking to secure the alleyway, good design has not
been compromised. There are no horizontal elements to the gates making scaling them difficult in
accordance with the requirements of Policy DC18 and Policy DES10 of the Adopted Unitary
Development Plan.
166
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The second issue associated with the development is the closure of a link between Peel Lane and
Peel Park Crescent. The Manchester and High Peak Area Ramblers Association raised this issue
and added that the closure of the alley without the relevant closure order would constitute an illegal
obstruction. On site inspection the alleyway was found to be overgrown and difficult to pass
through which is contrary to the provisions of Policy A2 of the Adopted Unitary Development
Plan. I consider that the alleyway could be maintained in such a way that it would pose less of a
threat to local residents by way of reducing crime and the potential of criminal activity occurring,
however the alleyway currently is overgrown and provides a concealed area where criminal activity
can occur.
I consider that the alleyway as it currently exists poses a significant threat to local residents due to
the concealed area it provides, and it does not provide a useful route for walkers as it is seriously
overgrown and impassable. I therefore consider that the development would be of a benefit to the
local area and would not be of detriment
CONCLUSION
I consider that the proposed alley gating scheme would benefit the
local community and would significantly reduce the level of crime and
the fear of crime in the area significantly. The gates would remain
visually permeable and would maintain views along the alleyway in
accordance with the requirements of Policy DC.18 of the Supplementary
Planning Document ‘Design and Crime’. It is considered that a
sympathetic design of alley gating has been used and this would not
detract from the street scene or impact detrimentally on visual or
residential amenity in accordance with Policy DES1. It is therefore
considered that the development would be in accordance with the
provisions of Policies DES1, DES10 and A2 of the adopted Unitary
Development Plan. The proposal is subsequently recommended for
conditional approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the
date of this permission.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be painted black in colour and shall be maintained as
such unless prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority is obtained.
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the appropriate order for
closure or diversion of the public right of way affected has been made.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
167
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
06/53838/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing And Planning Directorate
LOCATION:
Footpath At Rear Of 8-56 Upland Drive Little Hulton M38 9UD
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.2m high gates
WARD:
Little Hulton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a footpath at the rear of 8-56 Upland Drive. The footpath can be accessed
between 100 and 102 Captain Fold Lane and 56 and 58 Upland Drive. The footpath is bounded to
the west, north and east by residential dwellings and to the south by industrial units on Highfield
Road. The site is separated from the industrial estate by a 2m high concrete panelled wall with razor
wire on the top and from the residential properties by a 2m high railings and shrubbery. Access to
the footpath from 56-58 Upland Drive is via a short passage way and an area of open land.
The application proposes to erect 2.2m gates at either end of the footpath to replace the existing
metal barriers. The gates would be constructed from galvanised steel and will be painted green with
gold coloured finials. The gates will contain no horizontal bars that could be used for footholds and
all property owners will have a key to the gates for access.
SITE HISTORY
None relevant
CONSULTATIONS
The Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No comments received to date
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No comments received to date
The Open Spaces Society – No comments received to date
168
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The Ramblers Association (Manchester and High Peak Area) – Objection on the grounds that the
proposed footpath is an unchallenged Public Right of Way and the gates would constitute an
unlawful obstruction.
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No comments received to date
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No comments received to date
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2-58 Upland Drive (Evens)
98-108 Captain Fold Lane
Units V, R and S of the Highfield Industrial Estate
Albert Sewing Threads Ltd, Highfield Road
Bolton Engineering Ltd, Highfield Road
REPRESENTATIONS
One letter of objection has been received from The Ramblers Association (Manchester and High
Peak).
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
None of relevance
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None of relevance
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
DC18 – Perimeter Gates of the Adopted Design and Crime SPD.
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
None of relevance
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the design of the proposed gates on the
character of the area, the need for development and the closure of the footpath.
Policy DES1 states that development should be required to respond to its physical context, respect
the character of the area and contribute to local distinctiveness. The gates proposed will be made of
galvanised steel and painted green with gold finals as chosen by local residents. It is considered that
169
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
the proposed gates would be in character with the surrounding area and therefore are in accordance
with policy DES1.
Policy DES7 states that all new development will be able to provide users with a satisfactory level
of amenity. Although the proposed gates will be closed off to members of the general public the
owners of the houses adjacent to the footpath will be provided with a key for access. It is not
considered that the scale or location of the proposed gates will have an adverse impact on the
amenity of residents in the area and is therefore in accordance with policy DES7.
Policy DES10 states that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage
crime, antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime and support personal and property security. There
is significant evidence on site that the area to the rear of the properties is currently subject to
vandalism and a variety of antisocial behaviour. The area contained a high quantity of empty glass
bottles, remains of fires and large amounts of graffiti. The proposed gates will prevent access to the
rear of the properties on Upland Drive and will considerably reduce the fear of crime in relation to
this footpath. It is therefore considered that the proposed gates are in accordance with policy
DES10.
Policy DC18 of the Adopted Design and Crime SPD states that alley gating should be designed so
as to make scaling difficult and their locks should be protected so as to deter tampering and
vandalism. They should be flush with the buildings line and should allow views through them. The
proposed gates are designed with no horizontal bars so scaling is not possible. The gates will allow
people to see through to the footpath.
Policy A2 states that development which would result in the diversion
or extinguishment of an existing public right of way will only be
permitted where it can be demonstrated that adequate levels of access
for the disables, pedestrians and cyclists will be maintained to,
around and through the site where appropriate. Although not an adopted
public right of way it is considered that the open access to this
footpath over a significant number of years requires the application
to be assessed against policy A2. The footpath does not form part of
a wider footpath network and a footpath to the rear of Bank Lane and
Bank Grove, which previously linked to the application site, has now
been subject to legal closure. It is considered that Upland Drive
provides sufficient alternative access for pedestrians, the disabled
and cyclists around the site and therefore the erection of alley gates
along this section of the footpath is in accordance with policy A2.
The objections raised by The Ramblers Association were on two grounds.
Firstly the Association were consulted on a s118B application on the closure of the footpath. A
s118B application relates to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which enables local
highway authorities to make an application to the Secretary of State to have an area designated for
the purposes of crime prevention so that they can close or divert rights of way which are facilitating
anti social offences. The Council are currently pursuing the closure of this footpath through this
separate legislation, which is likely to go ahead in the next few months.
170
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
The second point of objection relates the description of development and its reference to the closure
of a footpath. The description of development has now been amended to state ‘Erection of 2.2m
high gates’ and therefore is considered to sufficiently address the second reason for objection.
It is considered that reduction in crime and fear of crime as a result of the gating of this footpath
outweighs the loss of the footpath to the community.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development
Plan. 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 and would help combat local antisocial
behaviour. It is considered that the proposed development is of a high quality of design and would
positively contribute to the character of the area 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. The development shall not commence until the necessary approval for the closure as required
under the necessary legislation has been served
3. Full details of the colours of the gates hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The gates shall be powder coated in the appropriate
colour prior to their installation and maintained in such a condition thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
171
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 21st December 2006
172