PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
APPLICATION No:
06/53154/FUL
APPLICANT:
Elite Homes (NW) Ltd
LOCATION:
Pendlebury Welfare Miners Temple Drive Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two/three/three and half storey buildings
comprising 42 residential units together with associated car
parking and construction of new, and alteration to existing
vehicular and pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Miners Welfare Club which include a bowling green and
associated car park. The site is approximately 0.53ha in size and now derelict with only a small
hardstanding remaining.
To the north east of the site is a playing field, St Augustine’s Church (a grade I listed building) and
St Augustine’s Conservation Area. To the east, south and west is residential with an industrial unit
(FEB) to the north.
There are a number of trees which line both sides of the boundaries of the site. At the entrance to
the site on Temple Drive, five poplars have been afforded the protection of a Tree Preservation
Order (No. 328).
Consent is sought for 42 residential units (31 apartments and 11 houses) together with associated
car parking and the construction of new and alterations to existing vehicular and pedestrian
accesses. The apartments would be located to the north of the site and would be three and a half
storey. Three storey mews houses would be located to the south. Two storey accommodation
would be located to the east. The layout of the proposal would provide a new access off Temple
Drive with all the proposed dwellings facing inward to the access road. The design of the scheme is
of a traditional design.
A public footpath bounds the northern and southern boundaries from Temple Drive to High Bank
Road and Hospital Road.
Temple Drive would provide access to the site. Temple Drive is a cul-de-sac with the northern end
closed to vehicular traffic by bollards.
47 car parking spaces would be provided across the site.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was refused in May of this year for a similar scheme under the Council’s
scheme of delegation (06/52456/FUL). That scheme sought consent for the erection of seven -
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
three and three and half storey blocks comprising 59 apartments together with associated car
parking and construction of new and alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses
The reasons for refusal state:
1 The proposed development would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area as the proposed
access would require the removal of five trees which are subject of a tree preservation order (TPO
328) contrary to Policy EN7 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy EN10 of the
Draft Replacement UDP
2 The proposed development would by virtue of the high density and consequently the insufficient
level of usable private amenity space result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the living
conditions of future residents. The overdevelopment of the site would therefore be contrary to
criterion 4 of Policy H1 and Policies ST11, DES7 and DES1 of the Draft Replacement UDP
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to the provision of a site investigation
condition and acoustic protection conditions. The acoustic conditions relate to no openable
windows / balconies within the northern elevation of the main apartment element, mechanical
ventilation, acoustically glazed units and the construction of an acoustic fence along the boundary
of the public footpath to the north.
United Utilities – No objection and provide the applicant with additional information regarding the
discharge of surface water.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle subject to the provision of a condition regarding
surface water regulation.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – They advise that “ The site is reasonably
well located in relation to public transport being just within walking distance of the bus stops on
Manchester Road and Bolton Road. Both these roads form part of the JETTS Quality Bus Corridor
network and as such will benefit from future public transport infrastructure improvements. Both
roads offer access to frequent bus services to a number of destinations including Manchester,
Bolton, Swinton and Leigh. Future residents of the proposed development would therefore have
access to a choice of travel mode which should help to reduce the amount of car travel otherwise
generated by this development.
In order to maximise the benefits of the site’s location in relation to the public transport facilities, it
should be ensured that the pedestrian environment is designed to be as safe and convenient as
possible so as not to discourage people from accessing the site on foot / by public transport. This
can be achieved through measures such as the appropriate use of surfacing materials, landscaping,
lighting, signage and road crossings. Where possible these principles should also be applied to the
pedestrian routes between the site and the nearby bus stops on both Manchester Road and Bolton
Road.”
Police Architectural Liaison Advisor – They advise that they object to on the following grounds:
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
I do not like the location of the main entrance door to the flats on plots 1-9. It is hidden
away from view from the road and will draw visiting strangers into an area that should be
private.
Similarly the entrances to the dwellings on plots 27+28 and 33+34.
If this scheme is to be secure then all main entrances must be taken directly off the access
road and the car parking and other rear areas must be private to the residents.
Sport England – Wishes to object to the proposed development, on the grounds that it would lead
to the loss of an area of land falling under the definition of a playing field.
The response then sets out what replacements should be sought should planning permission be
approved. I have summarised them below:
The cost of a comparable bowling facility. Sport England consider that a comparable cost
would be £80,000
An adequate level of provision of formal and informal open space
A contribution of £37,424 to mitigate the additional demand placed on built sport and
recreational facilities.
Ramblers Association – No response to this application although no objection was raised to the
previous application.
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No objection. “If planning permission is granted,
please include a condition that there must be no obstruction of any public right of way. Should a
temporary or permanent obstruction be unavoidable, then no development should take place until a
Diversion Order has been confirmed and the diversion route, with satisfactory surface and
adequate width and waymarking, is available for public use.”
The Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – No response
The Open Spaces Society – No Response
PUBLICITY
The site has been advertised by both site and press notice.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 71 Temple Drive
265 Pendlebury Road
The Fountains, Swinton Hall Road
Victoria House, Swinton Hall Road
29 – 43 (odd) West Drive
1 – 23 North Drive
40 Goodwood Drive
4 Queens Close
22 East Drive
46 Ludlow Avenue
179, 181 and 183 Manchester Road, Pendlebury
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
651 Manchester Road, Worsley
Threshers, 258 Eccles Old Road
14 Stoneacre Court, Swinton
319 Walkden Road, Worsley
43 Moss Bank Road
20 Belmont Avenue, Clifton
12 Blantyre Road, Swinton
45 Riverhead, Houghton Green, Denton, Manchester
35 Repton Avenue, Droylesden, Manchester
19 Wedgwood Road, Clifton
24 Linksway, Swinton
28 Kestrel Avenue, Clifton
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received objection letters in response to the planning application publicity from 18
households. Most residents have confirmed their objection following amendments to the scheme. I
have also received an objection from Councillor Valerie Burgoyne. The following issues have
been raised:Increase in traffic congestion on Temple Drive
Increase in car parking problems on Temple Drive
Insufficient car parking for new development
Increase in possibility of highway accidents
Density to high
Poor design of scheme
Unimaginative layout
There is already a surplus of apartments in the area
Inadequate access for the large number of vehicles of future occupiers
Increase in noise
Impact on value of properties
The footpaths around the site provide access for criminals
Damage to Temple Drive road surface
Increase in pollution
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:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, H1
Provision of New Housing Development, H2 Managing the Supply of
Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Within New Housing
Developments, 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
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
Parking in New Development, EN14 Pollution Control, DES7
Amenity of Users and Neighbours, CH1 Development Effecting the
Setting of a Listed Building
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1
–
L4
MCR2 -
Regional Development Principles
Regional Housing Provision
Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City Region
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Given that planning permission was recently refused for a similar scheme on this site, I consider
that the main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable at the density proposed, whether the 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 impact upon the
setting of a listed building is acceptable; 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.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPS3: 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
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
It is clear that the site, within the red line boundary, has been previously developed and therefore is
considered as a brownfield site. The site is also in close proximity to the City Centre and high
frequency bus corridors on Manchester Road and Bolton Road.
Moreover, GMPTE consider “The site is reasonably well located in relation to public transport
being just within walking distance of the bus stops on Manchester Road and Bolton Road. Both
these roads form part of the JETTS Quality Bus Corridor network and as such will benefit from
future public transport infrastructure improvements. Both roads offer access to frequent bus
services to a number of destinations including Manchester, Bolton, Swinton and Leigh. Future
residents of the proposed development would therefore have access to a choice of travel mode
which should help to reduce the amount of car travel otherwise generated by this development”
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.
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.
The previous scheme sought consent for 59 apartments at a density of 112 per hectare. The current
scheme seeks consent for a mix of apartments and single family dwellings and proposes 42 units of
accommodation in total. The density of the current scheme is 79 dwellings per hectare.
The second reason for refusal attached to the previous scheme states:
“The proposed development would by virtue of the high density and consequently the insufficient
level of usable private amenity space result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the living
conditions of future residents. The overdevelopment of the site would therefore be contrary to
criterion 4 of Policy H1 and Policies ST11, DES7 and DES1 of the Draft Replacement UDP”
Advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 3 for Housing seek to secure appropriate
densities on previously developed land. Densities are proposed at between 30 and 50 dwellings per
hectare. This revised scheme is still higher than 50 dwellings per hectare. However, the site is
located between the A6 and A666 where high frequency bus services are provided and within close
proximity of Swinton Shopping Centre and local schools. As such, I consider that this scheme
would provide an appropriate density of new residential development.
The previous reason for refusal considers the amount of private amenity space to be provided was
not acceptable. Amenity space and landscaping is discussed later in ‘Effects of the Development
on Residential Amenity’ of this report.
I am satisfied that a density of 79 dwellings per hectare is appropriate for this location and is in
accordance with policy ST12.
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
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
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 states that within West Salford the large majority
of dwellings within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments, in
order to protect the existing character of the areas and reflects the generally lower levels of
accessibility compared to other parts of the city.
The scheme as proposed would provide a mix of residential provision. 31 apartments would be
provided and 11 units of family housing. 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 apartments are located to the north of the site
adjacent to and parallel to the neighbouring industrial use. The Director of Environmental Services
has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions relating to acoustic protection to the proposed
apartments and a requirement to provide an acoustic fence. I consider that apartments, coupled
with the layout and with conditions, would ensure a satisfactory level of residential amenity across
the to justify the proposed mix.
The proposed Mews and two thirds of the apartments would be 57sqm or larger.
I consider that the mix identified above and having regard to the wider area and the improvements
on the previous scheme is sufficient to satisfy the Planning Guidance for Housing and policy H1 of
the adopted UDP.
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.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
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.
No affordable housing units are proposed in this instance, however, of particular relevance is the
final bullet point of policy HOU3 ‘Quantity of Affordable Homes’, where it discusses when a lower
proportion of affordable housing, or a lower proportion of commuted sum may be appropriate. The
bullet point states “The scheme was substantially developed before the adoption of this Guidance”
This current application was submitted in July 2006 and the previous refused scheme was
submitted in March of 2006. The Housing Planning Guidance was adopted by the Council in
December 2006. Therefore, it is a material planning consideration in the consideration of this
application. However, given that the previous refusal did not include a reason relating to the
provision of affordable housing I do not consider that affordable housing provision should be
secured in this instance having regard to the above. I am also mindful of the additional
contributions the developer has agreed to provide regarding the provision of a replacement bowling
green which will provide added value to the wider community.
Design and Crime
Policy DES10 development will not be permitted unless it is designed to discourage crime,
anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has raised concerns regarding the access points to a
number of the apartments. The proposed entrance points would be located to the rear of the
apartment blocks and hence the Police ALO is concerned that the scheme does not offer natural
surveillance to these entrance points.
The applicant has amended the layout and access point to plots 27+28 and 33+34. The proposed
access to plots 1 – 9 is identical to the scheme previously refused. The stated reasons for refusal do
not refer to this issue or policy DES10 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan. The applicant has
agreed to a condition requiring security details to be approved in writing which may include
additional internal fencing and CCTV to control unrestricted access to plots 1 – 9.
I am of the opinion that the proposal is acceptable in design and crime terms and would therefore
satisfy the policies highlighted above and the Council’s adopted SPD for Crime.
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 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
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
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.
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 design of the scheme includes traditional house types. They would be constructed using brick
with concrete roof tiles. The windows are articulated with brick headers and cils. The roof detail
includes a number of small pike gables above bedroom windows. This detail is carried out across
the house types and apartments.
I consider that the design and proposed materials for the scheme is appropriate within this area.
The design of the proposal is similar to that previously submitted scheme. Given that the
previously decision did not include a reason for refusal relating to design, I do not consider that the
changes to the scheme are sufficient to warrant a different view in this instance.
Effects of the development on residential amenity
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 proposal would maintain the Councils normal separation distances both internally and to
existing properties.
In accordance with the advice of the Director of Environmental Services I have attached conditions
to ensure that the noise emanating from the neighbouring industrial use does not detrimentally
impact upon the amenity of future occupiers of the development.
The previous refusal referred to the density of the scheme and the insufficient level of private
amenity space. The applicant has indicated that an area of land, within their ownership, adjoining
the application site boundary to the north would be designated private amenity space. The
applicant has also indicated that this area would also include landscaping and seating for future
residents. I have attached a condition requiring details of this provision.
As such, and with the inclusion of the acoustic conditions and details of the amenity space
highlighted above, I am of the opinion the scheme accords with the policies highlighted above.
Effect on Listed Building Conservation Area
Policy CH2 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have an
unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.
To the north of the site is St Augustine’s Conservation Area. At the centre of the conservation area
is St Augustine’s Church, a grade I listed building. The closest part of the site would be 65m from
St Augustine’s Church between which lies the industrial premises of FEB and includes a number of
silos in this area of the site.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
Given the distance of the site from the listed building, the industrial use between and coupled with
the maximum height of the proposed development, I consider that the proposed development
preserves the setting of the neighbouring listed building character and appearance of the
Conservation Area.
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 of 127 bedspaces (Four 4bed, Seven 3bed, Twenty one
2bed and Eight 1bed dwellings). This would generate an open space requirement equal to:
0.09271ha high quality managed sports pitches
0.03175ha equipped children's playspace
0.0508ha informal/amenity space
Since this development would be relatively small (i.e. less than 200 bedspaces) and is located in an
area with a number of existing sites available for improvement, it is considered the most
appropriate form for the open space requirement would be as a financial contribution to be directed
to open space improvements in the locality of the development. The contribution formula is
calculated on the basis of £540 per bedspace for all of the above provision and its maintenance over
a 20 year period. This would result in an open space financial contribution requirement of £68,580.
However, it is considered the improvement of the open space adjoining the housing development
area to Local Semi-Natural Greenspace standard would satisfy the informal/amenity open space
element of the requirement. This would reduce the financial contribution to £64,643.
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.
Loss of the Bowling Green
Whilst the former club building is agreed to be brownfield land, it continues to be a recreation site
due the former bowling green, protected by UDP Policy R1. PPG17 confirms that all recreation
uses should be considered before a site can be "surplus to requirements".
Bowling Greens are classified under 'Other Youth and Adult Facilities'. The Greenspace Strategy
Policy GS9 states that "a full range of adult and youth facilities should be available within each
Community Committee Area". A list of suggested 'adult and youth facilities' is provided. The
2001-2 audit of urban open space identified that the Swinton CCA only met 13-8% of the NPFA
standard for Youth and Adult sports facilities.
Policy GS13 in the Greenspace Strategy sets out the Council's approach to redundant and
replacement facilities. The 'brownfield' element of the site is not identified as a priority site to meet
the standards in the Greenspace Strategy.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
A replacement bowling green has been estimated at £90,000. Sport England have costed a
replacement bowling green at £80,000. Given that Sport England are of the opinion that an
appropriate cost to replace a bowling green of £80,000, and given that the developer has agreed to
this figure, I am of the opinion that £80,000 to be an appropriate financial contribution to mitigate
the loss of this bowling green.
Car Parking and Access
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.
In considering the previous application the Council’ consultant highway engineer offered no
objection to the scheme subject to further details of the access to the site and a condition requiring
emergency access to be provided.
As stated earlier the density of the scheme has been reduced. The comments from the Council’s
consultant highway engineer in response to the current scheme recommends the following
measures to mitigate the impact of the proposal on the highway network:
1. The proposed junction of Temple Drive and new access road to be designed and
constructed as per applicants drawing no. 1012/03
2. Provision of passing places along Temple Drive
3. Provision of safe parking along the narrowest part of Temple Drive, this may involve
strengthening the existing grass verges with tarmac
4. Provision of a suitable emergency access
5. Provision of adequate emergency access
6. Considerate contractors
The current scheme has been designed as per the applicants previous drawing. I have attached a
condition requiring a scheme detailing a suitable emergency access. It is likely that the existing
bollard at the junction with Swinton Hall Road and Temple Drive would be replaced with a
telescopic bollard. This suggestion would be acceptable to the Fire Service. I have also attached a
considerate contractors condition. The site is in close proximity to Victoria Park and its recently
refurbished car park, as such, I do not consider it appropriate to refuse this scheme on the basis that
it does not include a car park for the neighbouring playing fields.
The previous scheme did not include any grounds for refusal on highway safety. However, given
that the scheme was considered inappropriate in principle the mitigation measures were not
considered in detail.
Therefore, now that the amended scheme has overcome the in principle concerns it is necessary to
ensure that the detail is conditioned to ensure highway safety. With regard to points 2 and 3 I have
attached a condition requiring a scheme to be designed and approved to ensure parking and passing
provision along Temple Drive.
I am still of the opinion that the proposed access to the site would, with conditions, be acceptable in
highway terms, as such, I do not consider that the proposed access to constitute a reasonable reason
to refuse planning permission in this instance.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
Trees
Policy EN10 states that development that would result in the unacceptable loss of trees will not be
permitted.
The site has been inspected by the Councils Consultant Arborist with regard to the execution and
construction of a footpath on the northern side of five protected Lombardy Poplar trees. The five
Lombardy Poplar trees are large, mature specimens all reaching a uniform height of approximately
15m to 20m. They offer a significant amenity value to the local area and will help to generate an
impression of maturity to the new development.
The Arboricultural Method Statement, which was submitted by Trevor Bridge Associates in
September 2006 (Ref. No. DG/2827/MethodStatement)’ outlines the position and construction
method of protective fencing that should be erected in order to afford the correct level of protection
to the trees during the construction process. It also provides a specification for the construction
processes that should be employed when carrying out works within the Root Protection Area. All of
these fencing and construction processes are satisfactory and conform to BS5837:2005.
The consultant arborist considers the methodology to be appropriate to safeguard the Lombardy
Poplars subject to a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the
advice and recommendations contained within the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement. I
have attached a condition to this end.
Moreover, the changes to the layout of the scheme have also resulted in the retention of a number of
additional trees within the site which offer screening to the neighbouring industrial premises.
In conclusion, I am still satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding trees.
Other issues
The revised scheme which includes a revised acoustic boundary treatment to the rear of the
proposed car park. The position of the fence will retain footpath 4m in width at its narrowest point.
I have no objections from the Councils Rights of Way Officer.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
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 £64,643. This would contribute to the provision of open space in the vicinity.
In accordance with Policies R1 of the Adopted UDP and The Councils Greenspace Strategy, 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 £80,000. This would mitigate the loss of the
bowling green on site and would contribute to existing facilities in the vicinity.
Additional trees, other than those protected by preservation order would also be retained along the
northern boundary with the public footpath and neighbouring industrial units.
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the scheme accords with the policies of the development and that
subject to the following conditions and legal agreement the application should be approved. I do
not consider that there are any other material planning considerations which outweigh this view.
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 and replacement sports provision.
The heads of terms of the agreement are as follows:
The provision of £64,643 for the provision of open space in the vicinity in accordance with
policy H8 and R2 of the adopted UDP.
The provision of £80,000 for the provision of sports pitches in the vicinity in accordance with
policies H8, R2 of the adopted UDP.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the external elevations of the development shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved
materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. The 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.
4. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 14th November 2006 regarding
the Bedale Dalton house type and on 20th December 2006 regarding the Croston house type
and site layout.
5. 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
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
incidental thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement.
6. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme detailing the emergency access off
Temple Drive / Swinton Hall Road shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the method to control access and any markings
required to ensure that the access is kept clear from obstruction and a timetable for
implementation. The approved details shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed
timetable for implementation and shall be retained at all times thereafter.
7. No development shall commence until a scheme of recycling facilities for the apartments
contained within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of
any dwelling.
8. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
9. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
10. The construction of the development hereby approved shall incorporate the implications and
recommendations of the Arboricultural Method Statement supplied by Trevor Bridge
Associates in September 2006 (Ref. No. DG/2827/MethodStatement) which accompanied the
application
11. No development shall be started until all the trees within (or overhanging) the site, with the
exception of those trees clearly shown to be felled on the submitted plan, have been surrounded
by substantial fences which shall extend to the extreme circumference of the spread of the
branches of the trees (or such positions as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority). Such fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to
and approved in writing by Local Planning Authority and shall remain until all development is
completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil
shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.
12. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the
provision and implementation of a surface water regulation system has been approved by the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved
plans.
13. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme detailing the provision of passing places
and parking provision along Temple Drive shall be submitted for the written approval of the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the method to ensure that the passing
places and parking provision are kept clear from obstruction and a timetable for
implementation. The approved details shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed
timetable for implementation and shall be retained at all times thereafter.
14. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme detailing security measures within the
site should be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme
shall include internal fencing, gates and CCTV and a timetable for implementation. The
approved details shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed timetable for
implementation and shall be retained at all times thereafter.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
15. 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.
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.
16. There shall be no openable windows to the North façade of dwellings in plots 1 to 28 and the
West façade of Plots 1-9
17. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a scheme detailing the mechanical
acoustic ventilation system for all dwellings without openable windows. The scheme shall
include air changes per hour, boost facilities and the overall noise attenuation provided by the
ventilation system. Once agreed, all approved measures shall be implemented prior to first
occupation of any dwelling and retained thereafter
18. Prior to first occupation acoustically glazed units comprising glass of 6mm and laminated
6.4mm with a 12mm air gap (6/12/6.4) shall be installed in all other openable windows of the
development.
The unit shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations to avoid air gaps when fitting the frames.
19. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a scheme detailing the solid barrier to
be constructed at the boundary with the public footpath adjacent to Feb Master Builders
Technology to the north of the site to give a height of 2.5 metres above ground level. The
scheme shall be detail the barrier in accordance with the Noise Impact Assessment submitted
by the developer in support of this application and illustrated on plans SK-21-K. The approved
scheme shall be constructed prior to first occupation of any dwelling and shall be retained
thereafter
20. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme detailing the private amenity space shall
be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall
include the boundaries of the area, seating, landscaping, trees and a timetable for
implementation. The approved details shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
timetable for implementation and shall be retained at all times thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
4. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
5. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
6. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
7. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
9. Standard Reason R013B Use of parking areas
10. Standard Reason R036B Good aboricultural practise
11. Standard Reason R036B Good aboricultural practise
12. To reduce the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of
surface water disposal in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan
13. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
14. In accordance with policy DES10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the
adpoted Design and Cime SPD
15. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
16. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
17. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
18. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
19. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
20. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
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.
APPLICATION No:
06/53431/FUL
APPLICANT:
Miss H Staff
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent To 16 Barton Road Worsley M28 2PB
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a link detached dwelling and garage
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
The application relates to the erection of a link detached, three storey dwelling and garage. The
footprint of the proposed dwelling would be 6.6m x 7.8m. The property would be link detached to
16 Barton Road, with an over-sailing first floor element allowing a passage for vehicular access to
the land to the rear of 10 – 14 Barton Road and the integrated garage which would be located to the
rear of the proposed property. The site fronts onto Barton Road, and there is an irregular boundary
to the rear. To the rear of the site is a privately owned site, which shares the boundary. Both are
currently used to park vehicles. The vehicular access is to the front from Barton Road. The site is
currently bounded by a dwarf wall, and this wall has a number of conifers located behind it.
The proposal would be an addition to a row of four terraced houses built in the 19th century. The
four properties are grade II listed, have a simple form and present a coherent block. They are
rendered brick with a slate roof. The site falls within the core of the Worsley Village Conservation
Area and a potential World Heritage Site. Each property is made up of two storeys and has a wing
to its rear. The site can be viewed from the green area beside the canal and from the bridge crossing
the canal. The site can be partially seen from the canal towpath to the rear of the site.
The site is located facing a new development at 7 Barton Road which was allowed on appeal. The
appeal related to an enforcement notice that had been issued as a result of development which was
considered to differ from the approved plans (06/52037/FUL). The inspector found that, taking into
account the effect on the conservation area, that the changes implemented without planning
permission did not have a significant detrimental impact on the conservation area.
THE PROPOSAL
The proposed building would front onto Barton Road and would be linked to number 16 Barton
Road, a listed building, at first floor level. It would measure 5.2 metres to the eaves and 7 metres to
the ridge of the roof in line with the existing listed buildings. The roof would be lower than the
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
existing buildings where it attaches to the adjacent building. The form is similar, although not
identical, to the listed buildings. There would be a hip in the ridgeline of the roof to accommodate a
third floor to the rear and this would form the wing to the rear. The architectural treatment has been
to keep the front and gable walls in keeping with the existing building. The rear elevation differs
from the form of the adjacent buildings. The Design and Access Statement puts forward a number
of objectives primarily relating to keeping the external appearance of the properties in character
with that of the listed buildings and also stating:
That the principal living area should be sited away from Barton Road
That the driveway which has a number of rights of way over it, in this proposal, would be
maintained.
The proposal seeks to take advantage of the views over the canal and maintain vehicular access to
the rear of the site. The design of the building is a response to the constrained nature of the site.
There have been a number of amendments made to the original proposal. The first set of
amendments were made in relation to bringing the size and location of the windows into line with
the existing building and these were made in response to comments received by the Council’s
Urban Design and Conservation Team.
A separate outline application (06/53616/OUT) was made to the rear of the site which raised issues
of rear habitable room windows overlooking the land to the rear. A previous planning permission,
which did not have habitable room windows overlooking the rear site, gave permission for a roof
balcony, therefore a degree of overlooking was considered to be a material consideration.
Therefore restricted habitable room windows overlooking the rear were considered to be no worse
than the extant permission and a corner window/balcony was considered to be a solution to the
issue of overlooking. However, submitted plans caused further concerns for the Council’s Urban
Design Team especially relating to the increasing complexity of the design of the gable and rear
elevations. The concerns about the hip in the roof and the impact of the gable elevation on the
conservation area were raised at this point.
The current set of plans were submitted addressing the concerns regarding the gable and rear
elevations.
SITE HISTORY
A change of use from a garden to a parking area (99/39638/COU) was approved in October 1999 on
the site that is the subject of the current application.
Previous applications for an extension (05/50721/LBC and 05/50292/FUL) have received Listed
Building Consent and Planning Permission. This extension was a two storey side extension and
attached garage to number 16 fronting Barton Road. All habitable room windows faced Barton
Road, although the rear roof of the garage accommodated a roof balcony. A new vehicular access
was also approved. The red line of the current application does differ slightly from the previous
application, measuring approximately 240m2, as it includes 16 Barton Road as part of the
application site.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
Since the current application was made, an outline application has been made at the land to the rear
of the site (06/53616/OUT). This application has been subsequently refused due to insufficient
information.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Worsley Civic Trust – no comments received
Worsley Village Community Association – no comments received
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on the 19th October and press notices issued were published in the
Advertiser on the 2nd November 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
5A to 5E Barton Road
7, 7B, 7 Ground Floor, Barton Road
10 – 14 Barton Road
2 Heathfield
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 4 letters of objection in response to the initial planning application. The following
issues have been raised:AMENITY
Loss of privacy and light to the rear garden of 14 Barton Road
CONSERVATION AREA/LISTED BUILDING
Separation distance to the existing Grade II listed building is inadequate
Demolition of wall on the boundary of 16 Barton Road would be required but has not been applied
for
Roof line at the rear will be higher than that on Barton Road
Proposed render would only be on the front elevation and not on all elevations, therefore would not
be in keeping with the existing properties
Loss of stone wall and conifers
Lower ridgeline of the undercroft is out of keeping with existing terraces
Inappropriate development in a conservation area
Over-development in the area
No development should be approved on this site
PRIVATE RIGHTS
No alterations should be made to the party wall with 16 Barton Road, unless agreed by residents
from 14 Barton Road
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
ACCESS
High vehicles carrying skips would not be able to gain access to the rear of the terraces
Vehicular access would be over private land, or by reversing onto Barton Road
Limiting existing vehicular access for existing residents
No room for vehicle manoeuvre
High vehicles carrying wheelchair and wheelchair lifts would not gain access to the rear of the
terraces
The proposed dwelling could be incorporated into 16 Barton Road as an extension
OTHER
Discrepancy in boundaries between this application and application number 05/50292/HH
Safety of the undercroft
Site notice was displayed 15 – 20 yards from the site
Outline planning application to the rear of 16 Barton Road should be taken into account when the
decision is being made
The application has been brought before the panel for consideration at the request of Councillor
Compton due to concerns about the development having an unacceptable impact on the street
scene.
PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE
PPG15 - Planning and the Historic Environment
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H2 – Managing the Supply of Housing
CH3 – Works within Conservation Areas
CH1 – Works to, and demolition of, listed buildings
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
ST4 – Key Tourism Areas
ST15 – Historic Environment
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy H1 states that all new housing development, amongst other criteria, would be required to
provide high residential amenity.
Policy H2 states that the release of land for housing development will be managed in accordance
with the residential approach set out in ST11. ST11 states that previously developed land in
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
locations that are well served by a choice of public transport and are well related to housing,
employment services and infrastructure are acceptable.
Policy CH1 states that proposals for alterations to listed buildings will be considered in relation to
the effect on the listed building; the particular features of the building; the buildings setting and
contribution to the local scene and the extent to which the proposed works would bring benefit to
the community. Any alterations should preserve or enhance the character of the building.
Policy CH3 states that the Council will seek to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of
the conservation area. Criteria by which to assess applications includes: retaining and improving
the character or appearance of the conservation area; that development is of a high standard of
design; retains existing mature trees; and protects and improves important views into and out the
conservation area.
Policy ST4 identifies Worsley Village as a key tourism area and states that as such any
development should be protect and enhance the development.
Policy ST15 states that historical assets will be preserved and enhanced.
Principle
The proposed site is located in the heart of Worsley Village on previously developed land, and
would relate well to existing housing, infrastructure, public transport and other facilities. The
proposal is therefore considered to comply with policies H1, H2 and ST11 of the UDP.
Design and Conservation
Policy CH1 requires that any alterations affecting a listing building must preserve or enhance the
building. Policy CH3 sets the same test for assessing the impacts of development on a conservation
area. The Council’s urban designer and conservation officer have both been consulted and the
applicant has amended the plans in response to comments made by them. The increase in height to
the roof is designed to enable a third floor to take advantage of the views across the canal. Written
objections have been related to this design feature in particular.
The undercroft has been set back by 0.5m in order to visually separate the proposed building from
the existing listed building. Here the ridgeline of the building would be lower than the existing
building by 0.3m where it attaches to the existing buildings, and the ridgeline would come up to the
same height as number 16 Barton Road on the other side of the undercroft. This aspect of the design
was considered to be acceptable as it visually separates the proposed development from the listed
building. The conservation officer has advised that the proposed dwelling would not be included as
a feature in the listing of the existing building.
Following comment from the Council’s Urban Design and Conservation Team, various
amendments have taken place to simplify the scheme.
The gable and rear elevations have been simplified and support the listed properties and confirms
the pattern of development. The hip in the roofline will be visible from the grassed area and is still
a concern, however, the proposed design is considered to be acceptable. The conservation officer
supports the current plans and considers that the hip in the roof acts to distinguish the proposed
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
development from the listed building. I am of the opinion that the hip in the roof would not have a
significant impact upon the street scene and that the view of the gable elevation would preserve the
character and appearance of the conservation area. This complies with policy CH3. In terms of the
affect on the Listed Buildings, the frontage can be read as the main elevation, and provided that
materials are in keeping with the existing buildings, I consider that the proposal complies with
policy CH1. The Design and Access Statement states that roughcast render would be used on the
front elevation and the roof would be tiled using reclaimed Welsh Slate. Given the amendments
made, roughcast render has been agreed on all elevations. A condition has been attached requiring
this.
A 1.2m timber boundary treatment is proposed along the garden fronting Barton Road. This type of
boundary treatment is considered to be in keeping with treatment for a private garden. This
treatment is considered to be to be in keeping with policy CH3. A condition requiring details of the
railing to be submitted has been added.
Amenity
Objections have been raised regarding the impact of the proposed development on the rear of 14
Barton Road. As 14 Barton Road is effectively one house removed from the application site and the
rear of the proposed property does not extend further to the rear than the existing property at 16
Barton Road, I am satisfied that there would be no significant loss of amenity regarding
overbearing or overshadowing of 14 Barton Road. There is a rear window on the gable elevation of
16 Barton Road and this would which overlook the application site. However, this room relates to a
bathroom and therefore I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have a significant
detrimental impact on the amenity of the residents at 16 Barton Road.
There is a habitable window proposed in the gable elevation facing 16 Barton Road, but this could
be obscurely glazed to overcome issues of overlooking. There would be a bedroom window to the
front of the proposed dwelling at ground floor level. Facing the application site is No.7 Barton
Road, an estate agent. I am satisfied there would be no impact on the amenity of overlooking or loss
of privacy in this respect. I am satisfied that future residents would have a sufficient amount of
amenity in terms of light and privacy.
The proposed property would be 0.5m from the rear boundary and there is a site to the rear which is
privately owned and currently houses a garage and is used for parking. Ordinarily habitable
windows this close to a common boundary would be unacceptable. However, an extant permission
(05/50925/HH) incorporates a roof terrace overlooking the site to the rear. I am satisfied that the
proposed windows would not have a more detrimental impact than the previously approved
balcony.
Access
Issues have been raised over rights of way to private land to the rear. The proposed design does
maintain the current access and the issue of rights of way are private matters. I have no objections to
the proposal in terms of highway safety as there is sufficient room for vehicles to enter and exit
from the site in forward gear. A number of objections have been received regarding the passage
element stating that high vehicles would not be able to access the rear of the property. There would
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
be 2.3m to the underside of the tunnel roof. The height of the ‘passage roof would allow ‘normal
usage for most vehicles. To allow for the infrequent passage of ‘higher’ vehicle access would not in
my view be reasonable.
Other Issues
With regards to the objections that have not been addressed above, there is no guidance requiring
separation distances between listed buildings and new development. The safety of the passage
would be a structural issue for Building Control under building regulations. Issues regarding the
development or demolition along party walls is a matter for the applicant and the owner of the
adjoining property, and is not a material consideration. However, any demolition relating to a listed
building would require the necessary consent. Although not applied for concurrently, the applicant
has been advised that Listed Building Consent would be required before works could commence.
One comment regarded the fact that site notices were displayed on lampposts some 15 – 20 yards
from the site. I consider that this is satisfactory to inform a cross section of the public about the
proposals and given that the neighbours are notified in writing, I consider that increasing awareness
about the application is in the public interest.
CONCLUSION
The principle of development on this site is considered to be acceptable. In assessing this
application regard has to be had to extant permission (05/50292/HH) which allows a degree of
overlooking the site to the rear. Amendments have been made in response to comments received
from the Council’s urban designer and the conservation officer in an attempt to satisfy the design
issues raised. The current plans reflect the proposal in relation to the comments received relating to
design. Given the context of the site, as a Conservation Area, the affect on the listed building and
the designation as a tourism area, the design of any development of this site needs to be sensitive to
these considerations. I am satisfied that the proposed development as amended meets the tests set
out in policies CH1, CH3 ST4 and ST11. The proposal is also compliant with policies H1, H2, and
DES1 and DES7 of the UDP, and is therefore recommended for 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. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the walls and roof of the development shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved
materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. Prior to commencement, details of the drainage provision shall be submitted in writing to the
Local Planning Authority for written approval.
4. Prior to the approved dwelling being brought into first use, the lounge window facing the party
boundary with 16 Barton Road shall be obscurely glazed and retained thereafter.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
5. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to be
used for the fence of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved materials, unless
agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. The minimum floor level shall be 300mm above the adjacent road. Details shall be submitted in
writing to the Local Planning Authority for written approval prior to commencement.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990.
2. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing building in accordance with policy
DES1 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.
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: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6.
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.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that a building over agreement will be required if there are any section
24 Sewers within 3m of the building.
3. The applicant is advised to contact the Environment Agency prior to the commencement of
development in relation to sewer connection.
4. The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities prior to the commencement of development
in relation to sewer connection.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
5. The responsibility to properly address contaminated land issues, including safe development,
irrespective of any action taken by this authority, lies with the owner/developer of the site. The
applicant/developer is requested to contact the Council's Environmental Protection Unit as
soon as is practicable should contamination be encountered during development of the site.
Historical map searches have identified a former potentially contaminative use (i.e. may be a
former industrial use, an infilled feature such as a pond etc.) that may effect the development of
the site. You need to ensure that your builder and the building control officer dealing with the
developer are aware of this so that appropriate precautions can be taken to protect the
developer, the public, the environment and the future occupants from contamination issues.
For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Advisor, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the Directorate
of Environmental Services (Tel: (0161) 737 0551).
APPLICATION No:
06/53439/FUL
APPLICANT:
Turris Ltd
LOCATION:
Land The Rear Of 2 To 14 Lakeside Avenue Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 14 dwellings together with associated car parking
and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is currently an area of overgrown green space. The site is surrounded on all
boundaries by two-storey residential dwellings.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of fourteen two-storey dwellings with associated car
parking and new vehicular access.
SITE HISTORY
In December 1998 planning permission was granted for the erection of 19 two and three bedroomed
houses together with creation of 24 new car parking spaces (Re-submission of planning application
number 98/38032/FUL). The decision notice was never issued due to the applicant not signing a
legal agreement. (98/38616/FUL).
In September 1998 planning permission was refused for the erection of 33 dwellings together with
associated landscaping and car parking (98/38032/FUL).
In September 1989 planning permission was granted for the erection of 60 dwelling (E/24857).
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no objections but recommends a condition relating
to contaminated land
Greater Manchester Police – no objections but recommends a 1.8m high gate to enclose parking
space 5
United Utilities – no objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice and press notice have been displayed.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1, 7- 35 (odds), 6, 12 – 30 (evens) Blackleach Drive
1-10 Bryony Close
1 – 18 Lakeside Avenue
2 – 12(evens), 35 – 45 (odds) Bulrush Close
16 – 22 (evens) Worsley Road North
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection and one letter of support in response to the planning
application publicity. The following issues have been raised: Surface of Blackleach Drive is substandard
Existing parked cars along the adjacent roads make it impossible for emergency vehicles to
access Bryony Close the proposal would make this worse
There are number of existing houses in the vicinity therefore there is not need for additional
houses to be built.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: SD1 - The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DP1 – Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 – Location of New Development
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design Statements
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
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 building 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.
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
Planning Policy Statemente Note 3 – Housing (PPS3), which seeks to prioritise the development of
such land over land that has not been previously developed (greenfield land).
Policy H1 states that new housing development should, inter alia, contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area, provide a high quality residential environment and
make adequate provision for open space.
Policy Hou1 states that Within West Salford, the large majority of dwellings within new
developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments, in order to protect the
existing character of the areas and reflect the generally lower levels of accessibility compared to
other parts of the city.
The site forms part of a larger extant permission for the erection of 60 dwellings, part of which has
been implemented. The current proposal seeks permission for ten three bedroom dwellings and
four two-bedroom dwellings. There would be two blocks of four terraced properties and three pairs
of semi-detached properties. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the policies above
and I am therefore satisfied that the principle of the proposal is acceptable.
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.
Policy DES11 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal takes
account of the need for good design. A written statement should be submitted which explains the
design concepts and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual
appearance, the relationship to the site and its wider context and how the proposal meets the
Council’s design objectives and policies.
In accordance with Policy DES11, the applicant has submitted a design statement which outlines
design concepts.
The proposed dwellings are two storeys in height with a pitched roof. The proposed dwellings are
similar in design to those of the existing surrounding properties. Ten of the proposed dwellings
have small single storey outriggers to the front of the property whilst the remaining properties have
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
small single storey outriggers to the rear of the property. I would consider the design of the
proposal to acceptable in this location. I would consider the proposed design to be acceptable in
this location and have attached a condition requesting samples of materials to be submitted to
ensure a high quality design in accordance with Adopted Policy DES 1.
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.
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.
The proposed rear elevations of plots 5 -14 would be 21m from the rear elevations of existing
properties on Lakeside Avenue. Plot 4 would be offset from the front elevation of 16 Lakeside
Avenue. I would therefore not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable detrimental impact on
the occupiers of existing properties. In accordance with DES7.
The proposed front elevation of plots 5-14 would be in excess of 15m from the existing blank gable
walls facing. Each property would have a front and rear garden. I would not consider the proposal
to have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the privacy and outlook the future occupants of the
proposal in accordance with Adopted Policy DES 7.
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.
Car Parking
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.
There would be a total of 14 car parking spaces all except one would be would be located within the
front garden areas of the properties. The remaining space would be located to the rear of Plot 5. In
light of the Council’s maximum car parking standards and the need to encourage the use of more
sustainable modes of transport I would consider the proposed level of parking to be acceptable and
in accordance with Policy A10. I therefore have no objections to the application on highway
grounds.
Open Space
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open
space within housing developments.
The applicant has agreed to make a contribution towards the provision of open space in the area, in
accordance with the above policy of £28 080. A condition has been attached requiring the applicant
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
to enter into a Section 106 agreement. This is in accordance with Adopted policy H8 and the
Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on open space.
Other Issues
I have received one letter of objection in relation to the application site, the first relates to the state
of Blackleach Drive. I would not consider the proposed dwellings to create a substantial amount of
traffic to further deteriorate the current road surface to an unacceptable condition. I would not
consider the proposed development to congest further the adjacent roads as the proposal is in
accordance with Policy A10 and the level of parking is acceptable. There are a number of vacant
properties in the area, these are boarded up and are due to be demolished in the near future.
A condition requiring details of sustainable construction has been attached to ensure that
sustainable construction techniques are implemented during the construction.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purpose is
acceptable and. 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 and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the walls and roof of the development shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved
materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. The minimum floor levels shall be 300mm above the adjacent road.
4. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not commence until a Planning
Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 has been made and
lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning Authority has given its
approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a commuted sum as required by
Policies H8 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Draft Salford
Greenspace Strategy 2006 will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and
recreation space purposes and for local environmental improvements or such purposes as
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
5. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 6 months of the commencement of development and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Local
Planning Authority.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development, 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 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. The investigation shall also address the
implications 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.
7. 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. To reduce the risk of flooding.
4. Standard Reason R044 open space reason
5. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
6. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
7. In order to reduce pollution in accordance with policy EN19 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. 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.
APPLICATION No:
06/53710/FUL
APPLICANT:
Premier Land (Salford) Ltd
LOCATION:
Former Ford Mill Site Corner Of Ford Lane And Greenwood
Street Salford M6 6PE
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of part six and
part eight storey building with basement car parking to provide
119 apartments together with construction of new vehicular
and pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Ford Mill, Ford Lane in Pendleton. Ford Lane bounds the site
to the south, Greenwood Street to the west and the Manchester to Wigan railway cutting to the east.
The site is triangular in shape, 0.26 hectares in size and is currently occupied by a group of
buildings which are predominantly 2 storey red brick in appearance. To the rear of the site is a 3
storey building of glass and corrugated steel adjacent to Greenwood Street.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
The proposal seeks consent for the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of part six
and part eight storey building with basement car parking to provide 119 apartments together with
construction of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses.
There is a change in levels across the site. The proposal utilises the change in levels in the
provision of car parking. At the corner of Ford Lane and Greenwood Street the proposal would be
at its highest, 8 storey. Ford Lane reduces in height to the west and the elevation fronting Ford Lane
also reduces in height to six storey (above road level) and includes the vehicular access. The
footprint of the proposal is ‘L’ shaped and the elevation fronting Greenwood Street would be
similar to that on Ford Lane with 8 storey at the corner stepping down. The roof height of the lower
element would be the same at the roof height of the six storey element on Ford Lane. However, due
the change in levels the height of the building at the northern end of Greenwood Street would be 7
storey above road level.
Two vehicular access points would be provided to the scheme. One would be off Ford Lane and the
other would be off Greenwood Street. Residential accommodation would be provided above each
of the access points.
In total sixty nine car parking spaces would be provided off street within the court yard formed by
the ‘L’ shape of the proposed building. 36 spaces would be provided in an upper level and would
be accessed via the exiting on Ford Lane and 33 spaces would be provided in an undercroft section
accessed from a new entrance on Greenwood Street.
SITE HISTORY
01/42254/OUT - Outline planning application for the development of land for residential purposes
– Approved June 2001
04/48282/OUT - Renewal of outline planning permission 01/42254/FUL for the development of
land for residential development – Approved January 2006
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objection in principle subject the inclusion of a condition
requiring a site investigation and conditions to safeguard future occupants from noise and vibration.
United Utilities – No objection in principle subject to approval of drainage connections
Environment Agency – No response
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – “As stated in the design and access
statement, the site is well located in relation to public transport being within walking distance of
the bus stops on Broughton Road and Broad Street that offer frequent services to destinations
including Manchester, Bolton, Leigh, Wigan and Oldham. Nearby Salford Crescent rail station
provides services to Manchester Victoria and Wigan. Future residents of the proposed
development would therefore have access to a choice of travel mode which should help to reduce
the amount of car travel otherwise generated by this development. Furthermore, the use of this site
for high density residential development is supported as it maximises the benefits of the site’s good
public transport accessibility.
In order to maximise the benefits of the site’s location in relation to the public transport facilities, it
should be ensured that the pedestrian environment is designed to be as safe and convenient as
possible so as not to discourage people from accessing the site on foot / by public transport. This
should apply between the site and the nearby public transport facilities, in particular the bus stop
on Broad Street situated on the opposite side of the carriageway south east of the site and can be
achieved through measures such as the appropriate use of surfacing materials, landscaping,
lighting, signage and road crossings.
It is important to influence people’s travel patterns at the beginning of occupation and therefore,
although the site is accessible by public transport, GMPTE would expect a Residential Travel Plan
to accompany this application to help encourage future occupants to use sustainable modes of
travel.”
Police Architectural Liaison Advisor – “No objection given the intention to apply for secured by
design certification”
Urban Regeneration Company – 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
Network Rail – No objection in principle. Recommends the following:
that advice is sought with regard to the impact of the noise from the railway on future
occupiers
The applicant provide a suitable trespass proof fence adjacent to the railway
Where the parking spaces or vehicle manoeuvring areas are proposed adjacent to the
boundary of the railway, an Armco or similar barrier must be provided
Provide advice regarding drainage
Any external lighting should not impact upon the use of the railway
Consideration should be given to future maintenance requirements
A method statement should be provided for works within 10m of the railway
Requirement that during the construction period all mechanical plant should be carried out
in a ‘fail safe’ mannor
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
Charlestown and Kersal New Deal for Communities – “New Deal for Communities are
generally supportive of the redevelopment of this strategic site, however, they raise some concern
with the proposed applications on a number of aspects and request that these issues are given due
consideration during the determination process.
The initial concern relates to the proposed bland and unimaginative design and how that will sit
between 3 listed buildings. The scale and massing proposed is excessive and will detract from its
historic surroundings. The stark new red brick, aluminium and timber may appear alien amongst
the existing limestone and sandstone buildings.
They note that there are only 11 three bed apartments proposed in this scheme. This suggests that
family accommodation is not a priority for the developer. New Deal for Communities are
committed to providing a wide range of family housing in different tenures and would hope to see
this reflected in a revised scheme.
Within Policy HOU5of the now adopted Housing Planning Guidance it states that this development
would have to provide 20% affordable dwellings. This does not appear to be reflected in the
application.
There are a total of 69 car parking spaces proposed within the scheme. Is this sufficient to serve
119 apartments in this area?
Finally they query whether any consideration been given to any s.106 allocation.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 13th November 2006
A press notice was displayed in the Advertiser on 16th November 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Apartments 1 – 13 (con), The Maypole, 9 Broughton Road
Apartments 1 – 50 (con), The Gateway, 11 - 21 Broughton Road
Boxmax, Castle Works, Bazaar Street
Newbury House, Greenwood Street
3 Cobden Street, Sovereign House, 5 Cobden Street
The Unicorn, 10 Broughton Road
22 Broughton Road
Church Inn, Ford Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Insufficient car parking
Would result in on street car parking
Impact upon St Thomas Church (listed building)
Redevelopment consultation with New Deal have been for low rise redevelopment
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
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:
None
DES1 Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, H1
Provision of New Housing Development, H2 Managing the Supply of
Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Within New Housing
Developments, 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, EN14 Pollution Control, EN22 Resource
Conservation, DES5 Tall Building, DES7 Amenity of Users and
Neighbours, CH1 Development Effecting the Setting of a Listed
Building
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1
–
L4
MCR2 -
Regional Development Principles
Regional Housing Provision
Regional Centre and Inner Areas of Manchester City Region
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Given that outline planning consent has been granted for the principle of residential development, I
consider that the main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the
proposed development is acceptable at the density proposed, whether the 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 impact
upon the setting of a listed building; and whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable. I shall
deal with each of these issues in turn.
Loss of Employment Land
Strategic Policy ST3 seeks to ensure the supply of a good range of local employment opportunities.
Adopted policy E5 allows for a number of exceptions to this presumption against the loss of
employment land. This issue was considered in the extant outline permission for residential
purposes. In granting planning permission it was considered that the loss of this site for
employment purposes would not result in a material shortfall across the City.
Given that the site benefits from outline planning consent for residential purposes, I do not consider
that the loss of employment provision should be reconsidered by the panel.
The Principle of Residential Development
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
Policy SD1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy states that development should be focused within the
North-West Metropolitan Area, which includes Salford.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPS3: 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 has the benefit of outline planning consent
for residential purposes and is in a location well served by a choice of transport which I discuss
further below. This clearly establishes the principle of this scheme. 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.
I do not consider that circumstances have changed to warrant a different view on the principle of
residential development on this site. However, the outline consent did not approve a density on this
site and it is, therefore, appropriate to consider the proposed density.
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.
The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive have been consulted on this application
and have not raised any objection. The response from GMPTE highlights the accessibility of the
site.
Given that this site is located within the regional centre and having regard to the existing public
transport infrastructure, as outlined above, I am satisfied that the density is appropriate for this
location.
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
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.
The residential accommodation proposed in this scheme would comprise of the following
apartment mix:
1.
2.
3.
4.
12 studio apartments (10.1% in total)
33 one bedroom apartments (27.7% in total)
63 two bedroom apartments (52.9% of the total)
11 three bedroom apartments (9.2% of the total)
Planning Guidance for Housing has now been adopted by the Council (20 th December 2006) and
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 an 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 is therefore a material consideration.
The site is located within the Central Salford zone as defined within the Planning Guidance for
Housing. The guidance states “…new developments should provide a broad mix of dwelling types.
Apartments should only be the predominant form of provision on sites in the most accessible
locations within Central Salford”
The advice from GMPTE confirms that is site is accessible by a choice of means of transport.
Moreover, the site is also within walking distance of Salford Shopping City.
The average floor area for the apartments would be as follows:
studio apartments (12) 34 sq m
one bedroom apartments (33) 45 sq m
two bedroom apartments (63) 66 sq m
three bed apartment (11) 84 sq m
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
Whilst the floor areas highlighted above are averages, only the 1 bed room and studios would be
less than 57 sq m. A total of 62.1% of the overall provision would be greater than 57sq m in floor
area.
The scheme, exceeds 50% accommodation at 57sq m or greater and would provide a range of
apartments within the scheme. Therefore, I consider that the mix identified above and having
regard to the wider area is sufficient to satisfy the Planning Guidance for Housing (Central Salford
zone) and policy H1 of the adopted UDP.
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.
Housing Planning Guidance clarifies policy H4 of the UDP. It states that an element of affordable
housing should be provided on-sites over 25 dwellings or 1 ha, and that as the starting point 20% of
the total units should normally be affordable. Although the site already has outline planning
permission and there was no requirement for affordable housing at that time, it is necessary to
consider all relevant material changes since that application including the Housing Planning
Guidance.
The Housing Planning Guidance acknowledges that 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 professionally certified. This will be
treated on a confidential basis, where appropriate”
The applicants have confirmed that they do not intend to provide affordable housing as part of their
proposals for this site and have provided a supplementary document to support their view that
affordable housing should not be required in this instance. I have summarised the main elements of
the report below:
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
There are a very high level of affordable housing in the immediate area
There are low house prices in the immediate area compared to average incomes
The financial impact of the provision of affordable housing, combined with other
planning obligations, as set out in Salford City Council’s Draft Planning Obligations
SPD, would affect scheme viability, and;
The scheme was substantially developed before the adoption of the Housing Planning
Guidance
Of particular relevance is the final bullet point of policy HOU3 ‘Quantity of Affordable Homes’,
where it discusses when a lower proportion of affordable housing, or a lower proportion of
commuted sum may be appropriate. The bullet point states “The scheme was substantially
developed before the adoption of this Guidance”
In this particular case, pre application discussion were held with the developer prior to August
2006, which improved the external form of the development. The design of the scheme was
nearing completion at this time and a requirement for affordable housing was not required at that
time having regard to the extant outline permission and given that the policy document had not
been adopted. I also consider that the amendments made to the scheme have resulted in an
exemplar design between two listed buildings. Given that substantial discussions and changes to
the scheme were undertaken prior to the adoption of the guidance and given that the application
was submitted prior to this date, I do not consider it appropriate to secure affordable housing
provision as part of this scheme.
Turning to the remaining points, the submitted report also includes a financial appraisal for the
scheme. It concludes that the developers margin would be less that the 15% industry standard
without the inclusion of even 12 affordable units (20% of half of the numbers proposed). The
report also provides details of the average house price in Salford being less than the national
average and that substantial levels of high quality affordable housing are already being delivered in
Central Salford through the Manchester Salford Housing Market Renewal Programme.
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 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 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
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
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.
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 tallest component of the building addresses the corner of Ford Lane and Greenwood Street and
will compliment the tower of St Thomas’s Church as a focal point without competing with the
church.
The scheme is of a contemporary design adjacent to a mix of nineteenth century buildings. The
design philosophy, outlined in the submitted supporting information, is to use a similar palette of
materials that will ensure that a new scheme will complement rather than compete with the
neighbouring buildings, particularly St Thomas’ Church. The building would be constructed in red
brick and stone, whilst the upper two of the 8 storey tower will have a timber clad and aluminium
finish. The roof will be flat with some overhang, which has enabled the construction of the two
seventh floor terraced areas of the roof of the 6 storey wings.
A stone plinth wraps round the building rising up as the building moves from 3 to 5
In respect of materials, the buildings adjacent to the application site are primarily constructed in red
brick with stone or terracotta dressing, with the exception of the Church, which is stone built. The
proposed palette of materials comprises red brick, stone, timber cladding and aluminium, which is
compatible with the palette of the existing buildings. However, the quality of these materials would
be crucial to the successful integration of the building into its context.
The architects for the scheme have sought to achieve a high quality of design. It is consider that a
high quality design has been achieved and that this development is of a high quality in accordance
with the adopted policies of the development plan highlighted above. I consider that the proposal
represents am exemplar design.
Therefore, subject to the inclusion of a condition requiring samples of materials to be approved
prior to the commencement of development, I am satisfied that the proposed design and materials
are acceptable.
Effects of the development on residential amenity
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 layout of the proposal is in the form of an ‘L’ shape. Therefore, internally the scheme does not
provide for any facing windows. Externally there are no main habitable windows contained within
the gable of both the northern and eastern elevations. These elevations are closest to the
neighbouring railway. The southern and western elevations, which provide the main aspect
externally, front the neighbouring church yard and industrial area respectfully.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
The applicant has provided a full noise assessment. The report concludes that future occupiers of
the scheme would not be unduly affected by surrounding noise. The Director of Environmental
Services has assessed the submitted report and raises no objection subject to the provision of
conditions safeguard against noise and vibration. Clearly the principle of a residential scheme on
this site has been established through the granting of outline consent. Therefore, subject to
conditions in relation to the above, I consider that the scheme would not have a detrimental impact
upon residential amenity.
Effect on Listed Buildings
Policy CH2 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have an
unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.
The scale of the development, whilst larger than the existing buildings on site, is comparable with
the scale of adjacent buildings. The relationship between the proposed development and St
Thomas’ Church is of particular interest, as the Church should remain the dominant building in key
views of the area.
From the junction of Ford Lane and Broughton Road and from Greenwood Street, where the land
slopes away from the application site, the proposed development would appear comparable in scale
to the Church, however, in all other views, such as further down Broughton Road and from the
roundabout and A6, St Thomas’ Church is by far the most dominant building within these views
because of its position on the highest ground in the immediate area. It is considered that the
proposed development would not compete with the Church in these important views and, as such,
the proposed scale is acceptable.
Moreover, the materials proposed are discussed earlier in this report. I am also satisfied that the
materials proposed are acceptable in this location adjacent to a listed building.
Therefore, I consider that the application accords with policy CH2 as outlined 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.
The Police Architectural Liaison advisor has considered the proposals. The response states
“Having looked at the drawings I note the applicant’s intention of applying for Secured by Design
certification 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.
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.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
The applicant’s agent has provided a Transport Assessment (TA) in accordance with policy A1 of
the adopted UDP.
Vehicular access into the site will be provided via the existing entrance on Ford Lane and via a new
access point on Greenwood Street. The sloping topography of the site enables the provision of
sixty nine car parking spaces in a naturally ventilated split-level car park. Thirty Six spaces would
be provided in an upper level and would be accessed via the exiting on Ford Lane and thirty three
spaces would be provided in an undercroft section accessed from a new entrance on Greenwood
Street. Access to the car park would be controlled by a series of secure electronic gates.
Pedestrian access to the three bed dual aspect apartments would be directly via street level
entrances on Ford Lane and Greenwood Street, whilst pedestrian access to the upper storeys of the
development will be via a level access at the focal corner point of the proposal.
As stated earlier, the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive has no objection to the
proposal.
Given the site’s location in relation to existing community, public transport and other local
facilities, I consider that 69 car parking spaces to be an appropriate level for this part of the City.
Given the likely time period to construct the proposal I have attached a condition requiring the
submission of a site operating statement. This will require information to be provided and agreed
on:
provision of permitted hours for construction works
delivery of materials and delivery and collection of equipment
provision and use of on-site parking for contractors' and workpeople's vehicles
wheelwashing facilities
street sweeping
I have also attached a condition requiring the provision of cycle stores for the apartments.
Subject to the above conditions I have no highway objections and I am satisfied that the proposal
accords with the requirements of the policies highlighted.
Open Space Provision
Adopted Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
Adopted policy R2 states that planning permission will be granted for recreational development
provided it would satisfy a number of criteria.
This application is for 119 dwellings - therefore the open space requirements set out in UDP
Policies H8/R2 are applicable. The proposed development would generate 311bedspaces (11no.
3bed, 63no. 2bed, 33no. 1 bed, & 12no. studios). This would require open space provision, and its
20 year maintenance, equivalent to:
0.227ha formal sports provision
0.07775ha of children's equipped/youth and adult provision
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
0.1244ha amenity/informal open space provision
The site size is 0.26ha - therefore it is not expected this requirement to be met by on-site provision.
Instead a financial contribution equivalent to the capital and maintenance cost of the above open
space, to be directed towards improvements to open space provision in the locality of the
development is considered appropriate in this case.
The total financial contribution required from this development, to meet the requirements of UDP
Policies H8/R2, would be £139,950 (311bedspaces X £450).
The site is located in an area of the city which has limited access to existing sites, due to transport
infrastructure (main roads and railway lines). However, some suggested sites which may be
suitable for the contribution to be directed to, include:
Gloucester Place (Brunswick Park) - the application site is within the catchment of this
proposed LEAP
Clarendon Park - the application site is within the catchment of this existing
Neighbourhood Park and NEAP
Brindle Heath Playing Fields
Peel Park
Land at Duchy Road (Brindle Heath Lagoons) - UDP R6/12 new/improved recreation land
site.
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.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
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 £139,950. This would contribute to the provision of open space in the vicinity.
The design, scale and massing of the proposal has been improved through negotiation with Urban
Visions officers.
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 continue to act as a catalyst for
future successful development in this area and that it would signify the City Council’s intent to
accept a high quality 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:
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. 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.
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.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development, the applicant shall submit to the Local
Planning Authority in writing an assessment of vibration levels expected at the development
due to the passage of freight trains. This assessment shall identify the likely impact of such
freight movements including the times such freight movements occur and shall further propose,
where necessary, appropriate mitigation measures to protect the development from the effects
of such vibration. Once agreed in writing, all agreed vibration mitigation measures shall be
implemented fully in the construction of the building.
4. 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.
5. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme for the apartments 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 occupation of any dwelling.
6. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
7. No development shall commence until a scheme of recycling facilities for the apartments
contained within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
Authority. Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of
any dwelling.
8. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the external elevations 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.
9. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
10. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning
Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a
commuted sum as required by Policy H8 of the Adopted, having regard to the standards set out
in Policy R2 of the Adopted UDP and Salford's Greenspace Strategy will be paid to the Local
Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes.
11. 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.
12. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing an assessment of the noise impact
from the passage of freight trains. This assessment shall identify the likely impact of such
freight movements including the times at which such freight movements occur and shall
identify, where necessary, appropriate additional mitigation measures to protect the
development form the effects of such noise. Once agreed in writing, all acoustic protection
measures shall be implemented fully into the construction of the building prior to first
occupation.
13. Prior to the commencement of the development, the applicant shall submit to the local planning
authority, in writing, a scheme detailing acoustic protection measures for each faēade of the
building to protect future occupants from the effects of external noise from both road and rail
traffic. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details in full prior to the
first occupation of the building and shall be maintained thereafter.
13. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the local
planning authority has received and approved in writing a scheme detailing security measures.
The scheme should include secure by design principles. Once agreed in writing, all security
measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation.
14. To ensure design and crime principles in accordance with policy DES 10 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
3. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R008B Development-Building in vicinity
9. Standard Reason R013B Use of parking areas
10. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H8 and R2 of the Adopted UDP.
11. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
12. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
14. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
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 regarding drainage
3. 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)
4. Not withstanding the requirements of the conditions attached above the applicants attention is
drawn to the advice and requirements of Network Railway
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
5. The applicant is advise that any disused access points / footway crossings are to be made good
at the developers expense
6. In addition to the requirements of condition 13, the scheme shall consider both glazing and
ventilation specifications ensuring that the internal noise levels can comply with the
requirements of BS8233:1999. Details shall include the glazing specifications and also the
associated sound reduction index of proposed glazing. Facades facing the Railway Line or Ford
Lane shall be detailed separately including details of alternative acoustic ventilation methods to
minimise the need to open windows to achieve summer cooling or rapid ventilation.
APPLICATION No:
06/53938/FUL
APPLICANT:
Burglary Reduction Unit
LOCATION:
Alleyway To Rear Of 1-10 Mountain Grove, 18-20 Mountain
Street, 1-31 Algernon Road And 1-7 Vicarage Road Worsley
M28 3RG
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 2.2m and 2.45m high gates and additional fencing
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the erection of 3 double leaf gates and railings between 19 and 21
Algernon Road, 1 Algernon Road and 4 Vicarage Road and 18 and 20 Mountain Street. The
proposal would restrict access to the alleyways contained between properties on Mountain Street,
Mountain Grove, Vicarage Road and Algernon Road. The alleyways are highly concealed and at
present provide a hiding place and an escape route for those wishing to commit criminal activity.
The site is surrounded by residential semi-detached houses. The proposed alley gates would be 2.45
metres in height at their highest point and would be 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, therefore allowing vehicular access. Each resident
who requires access to the alley will be provided with a key.
CONSULTATIONS
The Open Spaces Society – No response to date
The Ramblers Association (Manchester and High Peak Area) – Objection- the following comments
were made:
‘ No application for a Gating Order or Extinguishment Order relating to this alleyway has been put
forward’
‘ The gates would therefore constitute an obstruction of Public Right of Way, and’
‘The said Public Right of Way is a useful link for pedestrians travelling between Mountain Street
and Algernon Road/St Marys Park ( which is why we would object to a Gating Order or
Extinguishment Order, should one be made).
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No Response to Date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 02.01.07
A Press notice was published on the 04.01.07
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1-4 Vicarage Road
1 – 10 Mountain Grove
12-20 Mountain Street
1 –37 Algernon Road – Odds
Wardens Bungalow, Abbeyfield House, Mountain Street, Worsley.
Abbeyfield House, Mountain Street.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: Policy DES10 – Adopted UDP
Policy DES1 - Adopted UDP
Policy DC18 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design and
Crime’
Policy A2 - Adopted UDP
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 Mountain Street, Algernon Road and
Vicarage Road.
“Impact on Visual Amenity and Crime Reduction”
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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
“Closure of Access Route”
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
Policy A2 states relates to Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled. It requires development
proposals, road improvement schemes and traffic management measures make adequate provision
for safe and convenient access by the disable, other people with limited or impaired mobility,
pedestrians or cyclists.
With regard to the comments received from The Ramblers Association (Manchester and High Peak
Area) Salford City Council’s Burglary Reduction Team has submitted an application for legal
closure. Furthermore, a condition has been added to ensure that no development commences until a
closure order is made.
I consider that the alleyway as it currently exists does not provide a necessarily safe route for local
residents due to the concealed area it provides. A suitable alternative route for pedestrians, cyclists
and the disabled is available along Algernon Road, Vicarage Road and Mountain Street. 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 help
reduce the level of crime and the fear of crime in the area. The gates would remain visually
permeable and would maintain views along the alleyway in accordance with the requirements of
Policy DC18 of 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 and Policy DC18 of the Design
and Crime Supplementary Planning Document. The proposal is subsequently recommended for
conditional approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
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.
3. The gates hereby approved shall be colour treated with the approved colour Black (RAL9005)
prior to installation and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
3. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
APPLICATION No:
06/53037/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Community Health And Social Care Directorate
LOCATION:
Orchard Mount Chorlton Fold Eccles M30 9NA
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application to include access for development
of land for residential purposes
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the land currently occupied by Orchard Mount, a day care centre for
people with learning and physical difficulties. Residential properties occupy the land to the north,
west and south of the site. The land to the east is occupied by two detached properties, a vacant site
upon which permission has recently been granted for the erection of 23 units (Ref 05/51901/FUL)
and Chorlton Fold Farm where permission has recently been granted for the erection of 13 units (ref
06/52457/FUL). Access into the site is via two existing access points, one in the south eastern
corner and another half way along the eastern boundary, both of which come off Chorlton Fold, an
unadopted private road that is built up along the southern approach to Rocky lane. The northern
approach road, toward Rocky Lane, is not made up.
Planning permission is sought to demolish the existing day care centre
and for the use of the land for residential purposes. The applicant
is also seeking permission for means of access to the site. The
appearance, layout, scale and landscaping details have been reserved
at this stage.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on the 13th of July 2006
A site notice was posted on the 19th of July 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Chorlton Fold Farm
Mellowstones, Chorlton Fold
Windy Ridge, Chorlton Fold
109 to 133 (odd) Rocky Lane
105A and 125A Rocky Lane
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
84 to 100 Rocky Lane
84A, flat 1 72 Rocky Lane and 98A Rocky Lane
5 to 9 Maldon Drive
10 to 14 Brentwood Drive
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections subject to the attachment of a
condition requiring a site investigation
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections
United Utilities – No objections
Environment Agency – No objections
Strategic Director of Housing and Planning – No objections.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 5 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised –
Access issues – the northern section of Chorlton Fold is a dirt track that is not suitable for
vehicular traffic and therefore vehicular access to the site should be restricted via the erection
of bollards so that vehicles can only enter and leave the site via the southern section of Chorlton
Fold.
Archaeology – It is possible that the line of the Roman road from Manchester to Wigan may
run through the farmyard
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other Policies - DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 Quality in New Development
SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DRAFT REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
The following policies of the Draft RSS – The North West Plan (March 2006) are considered to be
of relevance:
DP1 – Regional Development Principles
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
DES1 – Respecting Context
EHC4 – Reuse of Existing Health and Community Facilities
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 - Location of New Development
H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the proposed access 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 H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city’s housing stock is able to
meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford.
Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse and
conversion of existing buildings been the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
Policy EHC4 states that the reuse or redevelopment of existing or former community facilities will
only be granted where there is a clear lack of demand for the existing use or adequate alternative
provision is made.
Orchard Mount, a day care centre for people with learning and physical difficulties currently
occupies the site. The site is therefore previously developed and consequently the proposals to
redevelop the site are in accordance with Policy ST11.
With regards to the development of the site for residential purposes, the site is located within a
predominantly residential area and therefore, subject to compliance with Policy EHC4 I do not
have any in principle objections to the use of the site for residential purposes.
In order to demonstrate that the proposals are in accordance with policy EHC4 the applicant has
submitted a supporting statement with their application. This statement provides details on the
alternative provision being made for previous attendees of the centre and demonstrates that there is
no current or future demand for the facility.
Turning first to alternative provision, the applicant describes how the need for day care centres such
as Orchard Mount has diminished as the policy framework for caring for those with physical and
learning difficulties has altered with Local Authorities now being advised, where possible, to
provide care within the community. In response to the revised agenda the majority of people who
previously attended Orchard Mount are now attending various educational, leisure and
employment projects within the community. Those with profound and multiple disabilities have
been attending one of the Council’s other day care centres in Pendleton, Clifton or Irlam.
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
With regards to demonstrating that the building is not required by any other departments of the
Council that provides community facilities the applicant has provided the minutes of the Resource
Planning Group where the various council departments were made aware of the availability of the
building and given the opportunity to express any interest they may have. No expressions of
interest were made.
In the light of this evidence I am of the opinion that the proposed redevelopment of the site for
residential purposes is in accordance with Policy EHC4 and therefore I do not have any in principle
objections for the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes.
Given the nature of the access to the site via Chorlton Fold, concerns
have been expressed over traffic flow to and from the site should it
be used for residential purposes and the impact that this would have
on the highway network. Given the current use of the site as a day
care centre and the number of trips this use generates (roughly
calculated by the applicant at approx 42 trips in the morning and
afternoon peak) it would be possible to introduce residential use
without having an adverse impact upon the highway network. At this
stage the number of units has not been specified, as permission is
only being sought for the use of the land for residential purposes.
The impact that a specific number of units would have on the highway
network is not therefore being considered at this stage. It will be
considered at the reserved matters stage where a full traffic
assessment will be required in order to allow an assessment of the
individual and cumulative impact of the proposed development.
Access –
Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact upon the highway network or highway safety.
It is proposed to utilise the existing access points to the site. These existing access points are laid
out in such a way that I do not have any objections to the proposed development on highway safety
grounds.
Open Space –
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open
space within housing developments.
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant is aware that a contribution towards the
provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity is required. I have attached a condition
requiring such a contribution. I am therefore satisfied that the application therefore accords with
Policy H8.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of
the site for residential purposes is acceptable. I am of the opinion
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
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 and
that the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be
authorised to enter into a planning obligation under Section 106 for
the provision of open space.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition B01B reserved matters time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
a) appearance, including details of the aspects of a building or place within the development
which determine the visual impression the building or place makes, including the external built
form of the development, its architecture, material, decoration, lighting, colour and texture;
b) landscaping, including details of the treatment of land (other than buildings) for the purpose
of enhancing or protecting the amenities of the site 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 provisions of
gardens, courts or squares, water features, sculpture, or public art, and the provision of other
amenity features;
c) layout, including details of 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;
d) scale, including details of the height, width and length of each building proposed within the
development in relation to its surroundings.
3. Unless otherwise agreed the development permitted by this planning permission shall not be
started by the undertaking of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4) (a-d) of the Town
and Country Planning Act, 1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act, 1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority,
and the Local Planning Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation
will provide that a commuted sum as required by Policy H8 of the Adopted, having regard to
the standards set out in Policy R2 of the Adopted UDP and Salford's Greenspace Strategy will
be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes.
4. The finished floor levels shall be 300mm above adjacent road level unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
5. 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
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
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.
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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H8 and R2 of the Adopted UDP.
4. To reduce the risk of flooding in accordance with policy EN19.
5. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 18th January 2007
56