PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 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
At a meeting of the Panel held on 18th January 2007 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to 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.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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 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
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
”
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:
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
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
1 – 23 North Drive
40 Goodwood Drive
4 Queens Close
22 East Drive
46 Ludlow Avenue
179, 181 and 183 Manchester Road, Pendlebury
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
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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, 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
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
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
4
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, 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:
criterion 4 of Policy H1 and Policies ST11, DES7 and DES1 of the Draft Replacement UDP
”
“
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
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.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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
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.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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.
”
“
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.
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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.
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.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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.
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
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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.
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
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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.
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
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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.
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.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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
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
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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.
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 fa軋de of dwellings in plots 1 to 28 and the
West fa軋de 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
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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
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
adopted Design and Crime 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
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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.
APPLICATION No:
06/53463/FUL
APPLICANT:
Beara Properties Limited
LOCATION:
Builders Yard To Rear Of 3 To 19 Moss Lane Cadishead M44
5DE
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of one
three-storey block comprising six apartments and a terrace of
six three-storey town houses together with associated car
parking and landscaping and alterations to existing vehicular
access
WARD:
Cadishead
At a meeting of the Panel held on 1st February 2007 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant builders yard to the rear of 3 to 19 Moss Lane. The site is
currently occupied by a series of single storey and two storey buildings, which run round the
perimeter of the site. Vehicular access to the site is off Moss Lane, to the side of 3 Moss Lane. A
Kitchen Factory occupies the land to the north of the site and a row of nine two storey terraced
properties lies to the east of the site. A bowling green occupies the land to the west and a public
house and a club associated with the bowling green are located to the south of the site. Beyond the
kitchen factory to the north and the bowling green to the west there is a residential estate.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a three storey block comprising of six apartments
and a terrace of six, two and a half storey, town houses. The proposed apartment block would be
located towards the southern end of the site and lie on a north-south axis to the site, fronting onto
the access to and from the site. It would have a footprint of 20m by 8.5m and it would measure 8m
to the eaves and 11m to ridge. An area of amenity space measuring 14.5m by 5m would be located
to the northern side of the proposed block. A parking area with 6 spaces, including 2 suitable for use
by disabled persons would be provided to the front of the block. The terrace of townhouses would
be located to the north of the site, running east to west. The footprint of the terrace would be 30.5m
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
by 8.4m and the structure would measure 6m at the eaves and 10.7m at the ridge. Each property
would have a parking space to the front and a small garden to the rear.
SITE HISTORY
In May 1980 permission was granted for the change of use of Unit 7d Brews Yard to unit for the
building and repairing of boats (ref E/9317)
In May 1980 permission was granted for the change of use of Unit 7c Brews yard to clutch and
gearbox centre (ref E/9613)
In May 1980 permission was granted for the change of use of Unit 7 Brews yard to a motor and
engine repair and servicing centre (ref E/9614)
In May 1980 permission was granted for the change of use of Units 4 and 5 Brews yard to a motor
body repair centre (ref E/9615)
In May 1980 permission was granted for the change of use of Unit 2 Brews yard to a centre for
mechanical repairs of motor vehicles (ref E/9735)
In May 1980 permission was granted for the change of use of Unit 1 Brews yard to a steel
fabrication plant (ref E/9751)
In May 1980 permission was granted for the change of use of Unit 6 Brews yard to boat building
workshop (ref E/10156)
In May 1980 permission was granted for the continued use of Unit 3 Brews yard as a private lock up
garage (ref E10614)
In July 1980 outline permission was granted for the erection of 18 one bedroomed flats in one three
storey block together with associated car parking (ref E/10691/Outline).
In January 1995 permission was granted for the change of use of the units on the yard to a centre for
storage and distribution (Ref 94/33237/COU).
Other relevant history
In December 2003 outline planning approval for the use of the site at 25, 27 and 29 Moss Lane for
residential purposes (ref 03/47066/OUT).
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on the 30th of November 2006
A site notice was posted on the 15th of September 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
10 to 16 (odd) Oak Avenue
15 Oak Avenue
13 Hawthorn Drive
1-3 Wright Tree Vilas
8 to 28 (even) Fir Street
Grange House, Grange Place
146a, 150 to 156 (even) Liverpool Road
3 to 23 (odd) Moss Lane
14 to 28 (even) Moss Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised –
The use of the accessway adjacent to number 3 Moss Lane would have an adverse impact
upon the stability of the property at 3 Moss Lane.
Noise and disturbance during the construction period
Insufficient parking
I have also received 17 letters expressing support for the proposed development.
Councillor Mann has requested that Panel consider this application as he is supportive of the
proposals to develop the site.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections in principle. Requested a condition requiring a site
investigation
United Utilities – No objection in principle
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – Object to the proposal on noise grounds. The
applicant is proposing to install acoustic glazing and mechanical ventilation and they are
proposing to erect a 4m high acoustic barrier along the boundary with the kitchen factory at 21
Moss Lane. These measures would ensure that overall noise levels would be within the bound
of reasonableness defined by BS8233. The nature of work at the kitchen factory is, however
such that there would be impulses of noise created by wood working machinery; woodcutting,
voices and fork lift truck movements. The measures proposed would not adequately mitigate
against such impulses and consequently noise from woodworking machinery would be audible
within the properties and noise from wood working machinery, wood cutting, voices and fork
lift truck movements would be audible in the garden areas. The Strategic Director of
Environmental Services is therefore of the opinion that future residents of the proposed
townhouses would not enjoy a satisfactory level of amenity should the proposal receive
favourable consideration.
Architectural Liaison Officer – Initial objections over the inclusion of a car port and a recessed
garage have now been overcome by the removal of the recessed area.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other Policies - DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 Quality in New Development
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design and Crime
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 there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; and whether the proposal complies with the
relevant policies of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan. I shall deal with each of these issues in
turn.
Principle of development
Policy DP1 seeks to ensure that development makes the most efficient use of land. This is
re-iterated in Draft Policy DP1.
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.
The Draft Planning Guidance on Housing states that in this area, West Salford, the majority of units
within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
Until recently the site was used as a builders yard. The site is therefore previously developed and
consequently the proposals to redevelop the site are in accordance with Policy ST11.
I do not have any objections to the loss of the builders yard, as the site is not located within an
established employment area as identified in Policy E5. In fact I am of the opinion that the
redevelopment of the site formerly occupied by the builders yard would be beneficial to the area as
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
it would remove a potential source of noise and disturbance from what is a predominantly
residential area.
Given the predominantly residential nature of the area I do not have an in principle objections to the
use of the land for residential purposes.
With regards to Policy H1 of the adopted UDP and the Draft SPD on Housing and the mix of units
proposed the proposed development provides a mix of dwellings and apartments, providing 6 2-bed
apartments and 6 3-bed houses. As such I am of the opinion that the proposed development would
contribute towards the mix of dwellings in the locality and as such the proposal is in accordance
with policy H1 of the adopted UDP and the draft planning guidance on housing.
Design
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality
and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES13 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.
The design of the buildings is of high standard and in accordance with Policy DES13 a design
statement has been submitted with the application.
The proposed dwellings would be two and half storey with living accommodation designed into the
roofspace. The dwellings would measure 6m at the eaves and 10.7m at the ridge. The proposed
three-storey apartment block would measure 8m to the eaves and 11m to the ridge. I am of the
opinion that the design, scale and massing of the proposed dwellings would respect that of the that
of other properties in the vicinity of the site, including those on Moss Lane and Hawthorn Drive,
which are predominantly two stories in height. Consequently I am of the opinion that the proposed
development would harmonise well with its surroundings.
The proposed materials would consist of brick, UPVC windows and concrete roofing tiles. I have
attached a condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and approved
prior to the commencement of development to ensure that they compliment the appearance of
surrounding buildings and that they are of a suitably high quality.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact upon the
visual amenity of the area as the buildings and spaces around the buildings will add value and
quality to the built environment in accordance with policies DES2 and DES13 of the adopted UDP.
Amenity
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The blank gable end of the terrace of town houses would be located 15m from the ground and first
floor habitable room windows in the rear elevation of the properties on Moss Lane. The gable end
of the townhouses would be located 8.5m from the rear yards of the properties on Moss Lane, the
boundary of which is marked by 2m high (approx) boundary walls. Having regard to the
relationship between the proposed townhouses and the properties on Moss Lane I am of the opinion
that this level of separation is adequate to ensure that the proposed terrace of townhouses would not
form an overbearing structure nor would the terrace overshadow the properties on Moss Lane. I am
therefore of the opinion that the residential amenity the occupants of the properties on Moss Lane
can reasonably expect to enjoy would not be affected by the proposed development.
There is a residential property located to the west of the application site at 3 Wright Tree Villas. The
blank gable end of the proposed two and a half-storey terrace of townhouses would be located 29m
from the habitable room windows in the rear elevation of this property. I am therefore of the
opinion that the residential amenity the occupants of this property would not be affected by the
proposed development.
The rest of the land to the west of the site is occupied by a bowling green. A kitchen factory
occupies the land to the north of the site. The car park to the public house at 152 Liverpool Road
and the club associated with the bowling green occupy the land to the south. In order to prevent
sterilising these sites from future development the scheme has been designed so that the proposed
apartments and the proposed townhouses are single aspect with all habitable room windows facing
into the site.
Policy DES7 also requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level
of amenity.
The site lies adjacent to a kitchen factory. There are no restrictions placed upon the hours of
opening of the kitchen factory and consequently while the factory is currently only operational
during the day there is the potential for the factory to open 24 hours a day. The steel clad
workshop-building runs along the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to the proposed terrace of
townhouses.
In order to protect the amenity of future occupants of the proposed townhouses the applicant has
designed the proposed townhouses so that they only have non-habitable rooms facing the kitchen
factory site. At ground floor level there would be a laundry room with double doors. At first and
second floor level they are proposing to have non-opening acoustic glazed windows and
mechanical ventilation installed to the kitchen and the bathroom. It is also proposed to erect a 4m
high acoustic screen along the boundary between the proposed town houses and the kitchen factory.
The screen would comprise of a 2m high brick wall with a 2m high Perspex screen above. Details of
the screen have not been provided at this point however I am of the opinion that with careful design
the proposed acoustic barrier can be introduced without having an adverse impact upon the
residential amenity that future occupants of the proposed dwellings can reasonably expect to enjoy.
Similarly I am of the opinion that the screen can be introduced without having an adverse impact
upon the visual amenity of the area, as it would be sited in a location that is not visible from the
street.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
The Director of Environmental Services is of the opinion that while the mitigation measures would
reduce overall noise levels, which would be within the bounds of reasonableness as defined in
BS8233 the nature of work at the kitchen factory is such that there would be impulses of noise
created by wood working machinery; woodcutting, voices and fork lift truck movements. The
measures proposed would not adequately mitigate against such impulses and consequently noise
from woodworking machinery would be audible within the properties and noise from wood
working machinery, wood cutting, voices and fork lift truck movements would be audible in the
garden areas. Given the frequency of use of the woodworking machines etc it is possible that future
occupants of the proposed dwellings would be subjected to unacceptable noise levels every 10
minutes. Such levels of exposure would erode the level of amenity future occupants of the proposed
dwellings can reasonably expect to enjoy and could constitute a statutory nuisance.
A statutory nuisance is described within the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as either
prejudicial to health or a nuisance and includes things such as noise emitted from premises and any
dust, steam, smell or other effluvia arising on industrial, trade or business premises. Statutory
Nuisance does not have a direct correlation to amenity however one is out of necessity linked to the
other. An item can affect the amenity of someone without causing a statutory nuisance however a
statutory nuisance can not exist without there already being an effect on the amenity of someone. A
Statutory Nuisance could therefore be considered as an extreme loss of amenity.
In order to determine whether a statutory nuisance exists Environmental Health Officers monitor
sites to determine whether the noise, odour or smoke etc emitted from premises is reasonable. To
do this they measure both quantitatively and qualitatively the noise, odour or smoke emitted from
premises and assess whether they reasonably expect to experience that in their own home? If at any
time during the investigation the matter is considered to be unreasonable for any one or more
reasons, it can then be considered as a Statutory Nuisance.
Once a Statutory Nuisance has been determined, the Council is obliged to serve an abatement
notice on the person responsible for the nuisance. Such notices specify what is to be achieved and
when it must be achieved by. Prior to serving the notice the Council is however required to assess
whether the person responsible for the nuisance is doing everything they can to prevent the
nuisance or alternatively there is no practicable means to prevent the nuisance from occurring. This
is determined by Best Practicable Means (BPM). Best Practicable Means (BPM) is interpreted by
reference to the following provisions (a)"practicable" means reasonably practicable having regard
among other things to local conditions and circumstances, to the current state of technical
knowledge and to the financial implications; and (b) the means to be employed include the design,
installation, maintenance and manner and periods of operation of plant and machinery, and the
design, construction and maintenance of buildings and structures. Having regard to these
provisions Environmental Health Officer can determine whether a nuisance will have a BPM
defence. If a BPM defence is available, it is unlikely that any further action will can be taken.
In the last 12 years the Strategic Director of Environmental Services has received 15 complaints
relating to noise, odour and smoke against the kitchen factory that lies adjacent to the application
site, 8 of which were noise complaints. The remaining 7 were complaints of smoke and associated
odours. The complaints were received from residents of two streets located within close proximity
to the kitchen factory. Upon receiving each complaint Environmental Health Officers had to
determine whether a Statutory Nuisance exists by investigating complaints, gathering information
and taking account of the impact of the problem on the persons complaining. Past investigations
undertaken by Environmental Health Officers have determined that noise from noise from the
playing of amplified music and speech were not deemed to have a BPM defence and consequently
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
a noise abatement notice was served on the kitchen factory owners with respect to the nuisance
these were causing. This notice is still valid. However it was determined that noise from some of
the plant & equipment at the kitchen factory has a BPM defence. As such, it has not been possible to
serve a noise abatement notice on noise from such equipment and the nuisance remains, thereby
affecting the amenity of residents within the vicinity of the kitchen factory.
As discussed previously the nature of work at the kitchen factory is such that there would be
impulses of noise created by wood working machinery; woodcutting, voices and fork lift truck
movements. The mitigation measures proposed would not adequately mitigate against such
impulses and consequently noise from woodworking machinery would be audible within the
properties and noise from wood working machinery, wood cutting, voices and fork lift truck
movements would be audible in the garden areas. The Strategic Director of Environmental Services
is of the opinion that the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed development will be affected
by the proximity to the adjacent kitchen factory. As a result even with the mitigation measures
proposed it is probable that locating properties so close to the site will result in a significantly
increased risk of further complaints being received from the future occupiers. As discussed the
Council’s ability to take action as a result of such complaints is limited due to the defence of best
practical means and consequently it is likely that noise from the kitchen factory would continue,
eroding the amenity of future occupants of the proposed dwellings can reasonably expect to enjoy.
The impact that noise from the kitchen factory would have on the amenity enjoyed by future
residents would be increased should the kitchen factory decide to operate 24 hours.
In addition to considering the impact that the kitchen factory would have on the amenity of future
residents of the proposed dwellings it is also important to note that the introduction of the new
development could, if additional complaints are received for which BPM is not a reasonable
defence which abatement action can be taken, be detrimental to the kitchen factory company as it is
likely to involve financial investment to resolve the matter.
The applicant is of the opinion that future occupants of the proposed dwellings would enjoy a
satisfactory level of amenity. They do not feel that the presence of periodic noise, which will only
be present in short bursts, if at all, constitutes an adequate reason for refusal. They feel that the
mitigation measures proposed would ensure that future occupiers of the proposed townhouses
would be adequately protected from noise emanating from the kitchen factory, as they will be
exposed to noise levels that are within the standards set out in BS5837. As discussed earlier while
the mitigation measures would reduce overall noise levels to within the bounds of reasonableness
as defined in BS8233 the nature of work at the kitchen factory is such that there would be impulses
of noise created by wood working machinery; woodcutting, voices and fork lift truck movements
which the mitigation measures proposed would not adequately mitigate against and consequently
noise from woodworking machinery would be audible within the properties and noise from wood
working machinery, wood cutting, voices and fork lift truck movements would be audible in the
garden areas at levels above maximum exposure levels set out in BS5837 and World Health
Organisation Guidelines.
In order to support their case the applicant cites a previous outline approval for the use of the land at
25 to 29 Moss Lane for residential purposes (ref 03/47066/OUT). The Panel approved this
application in December 2003. A condition of this approval required acoustic double-glazing to be
fitted to all living rooms and bedrooms. The relationship of the site to the kitchen factory is
different to that being considered in this case. The site is located away from the main workshop,
adjacent to the storage/office area. This storage/office area was considered to provide an element of
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
screening to the site at 25 to 29 Moss Lane, thereby making its relationship with the kitchen factory
an acceptable one should the land be developed for residential purposes.
The applicant also notes the positive impact that the development would have on the amenity of
existing residents as it would remove a known neighbour nuisance – the builders yard, which has
generated complaints from neighbouring residents who were adversely affected by the operation of
the yard, in particular by loading operations carried out from the street.
Each of the proposed dwellings would be provided with a reasonable amount of useable amenity
space in the form of a rear garden. Future occupants of the proposed apartments would be provided
with a grassed area measuring approximately 5m by 14m.
Car Parking
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
One parking space would be provided for each of the proposed dwellings and each of the proposed
apartments would have a car parking space allocated to it. The application site is well located in
terms of public transport and therefore I am satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is
acceptable. The proposed car parking and access would be laid out in such a way that I do not have
any objections to the proposed development on highway safety grounds as I do not consider that
there would be any long term issues with the increased vehicular traffic flow to and in the vicinity
of the site.
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 £19,440 contribution towards
the provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity is required.
Other Issues
With regards to concerns over noise and disruption during the construction phase this could be
overcome by the submission of a considerate contractors management plan.
The other objection related to the use of the accessway and the impact that this might have on the
structural stability of the property at 3 Moss Lane. The access to the proposed development is the
same as the access to the existing builders yard. The level of traffic using the accessway should the
proposed development receive favourable consideration is unlikely to be significantly different to
that created by the established use and consequently I do not feel that the proposed development
would have an adverse impact upon the structural stability of the property at 3 Moss Lane.
CONCLUSION
The proposed development would have a positive impact upon the residential amenity enjoyed by
existing neighbouring residents, as it would remove a bad neighbour use from the site. The
proposed development is also well designed internally within the site.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
The applicant has sought to minimise the impacts of the adjacent kitchen factory through the layout
of the proposed development and other mitigation measures. The mews houses that front onto the
kitchen factory only have non-habitable rooms facing the kitchen factory site, rooms which would
be fitted with non-opening acoustic glazed windows and mechanical ventilation. To further
mitigate against noise from the kitchen factory a 4m high acoustic fence would be erected along the
boundary between the proposed town houses and the kitchen factory.
While these measures would reduce overall noise levels, so they are within the bounds of
reasonableness as defined in BS8233, the nature of work at the kitchen factory is such that there
would be impulses of noise created by wood working machinery; woodcutting, voices and fork lift
truck movements, that could occur as frequently as every 10 minutes. The mitigation measures
proposed could not successfully mitigate against these impulses of noise. As a result future
occupants of the proposed dwellings would be exposed to noise impulses from woodworking
machinery at levels above maximum exposure levels set out in BS5837 and World Health
Organisation Guidelines at a high frequency. Such levels of exposure would erode the level of
amenity the future occupants of the proposed dwellings can reasonably expect to enjoy. The noise
impacts would be difficult to control via Environmental Health nuisance legislation as a result of
the defence of Best Practical Means.
Although there would be benefits to the area from the removal of the builders yard given that there
are no any proposals to redevelop the kitchen factory I have to assess the application based on the
current position. I consider on balance that the application should be refused on the basis that the
proposed development is contrary to policy DES7 of the adopted UDP.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The future occupants of the proposed townhouses would not, by reason of the siting of the
proposed dwellings adjacent to a kitchen factory, enjoy a satisfactory level of residential
amenity. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy DES7 of the adopted UDP.
APPLICATION No:
06/53739/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Dooner
LOCATION:
34 Sapling Road Swinton M27 0BZ
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a two storey side extension and single storey rear
extension
WARD:
Swinton South
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
At a meeting of the Panel held on 1st February 2007 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to the erection of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear
extension to this semi detached dwelling. The proposed side extension would extend up to the
shared boundary with number 36 Sapling Road. No windows are proposed to be inserted in the side
elevation of this extension. Both extensions are proposed to extend 2.8 metres from the existing
rear elevation of the house. It is proposed that the rear extension has a sloping roof.
The adjacent property has a single storey extension which is used as a kitchen/dining room . The
dining room has a doorway in the side elevation which allows light into the dining area. The
distance between the extension at number 36 Sapling Road and the boundary is less than a metre. It
is proposed that the first floor element of the side extension will be set back two metres from the
existing front line of the house, and envelops the side and part rear of the existing building in an
L-shape.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
32-36 Sapling Road (Evens)
21-23 Folly Lane (Odds)
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection to the proposal from the neighbour adjacent to the proposal
site.
I have received one letter of objection from Councillor V. Burgoyne who has requested that the
application is referred to Panel because of concerns that the development would unduly affect the
amenity of the adjacent neighbour due to its proximity with the boundary.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific: None
Other policies:
DES1 (Respecting Context)
DES8 (Alterations and Extensions)
SPD - ‘House Extensions’
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Issues
The main issues associated with this application are the effect the development will have on the
immediate neighbour at number 36 Sapling Road and whether the development would constitute an
unacceptable addition in terms of its size.
Policy Framework
Policy DES1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that any development respects the
context of the area within which it is set. The policy specifies that in determining applications,
regard should be had to the impact upon and relationship to the existing landscape or
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
environmental species or species; the character scale and pattern of buildings, their relationship ,
the scale of the proposed development, the impact upon views and vistas, the streets vertical and
horizontal rhythms, the materials for the development, and the compatibility with the adjoining
uses.
Policy DES8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan requires that planning permission is only
granted for alterations or extensions to existing buildings that respect the general scale and
character of the area, the rhythms, proportions, details and materials of the original structure and
complement the general character of the surrounding area.
Policy HE1 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘House Extensions’ states that
facing principle windows of habitable rooms should maintain a minimum distance of 10.5m to the
boundary and 21m to directly facing principle windows of habitable rooms in order to protect the
amenities of directly facing occupiers in terms of privacy
Policy HE8 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘House Extensions’ requires that
where a two storey extension is proposed to the side of a dwelling either the first floor element of
the extension must be set back by two metres from the front line of the house or the whole of the
extension set back by one metre.
Analysis
Policy DES1 and DES8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan require that all proposals for
development should respect the context of the area within which they are set. I do not consider that
the proposed development would be out of place within the local area or in relation to the existing
building. The development would not significantly affect the character of the street scene or be
visually intrusive. I therefore consider that the proposal would be in accordance with Policies DES1
and DES8 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
In accordance with Policy HE1 of the Adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘House
Extensions’ the distance between the windows within the rear elevation of the ground floor and two
storey extension would exceed 10.5 metres to the boundary and 21 metres to directly facing
principle windows of habitable rooms at the rear. It is considered therefore that there would be no
loss of privacy to residents of properties on Folly Lane whose habitable room windows directly
face the rear elevation of the development.
Two storey extensions are not normally permitted where they would introduce two storey gables
within 13 metres of principal habitable room windows.However, the principal window within the
adjacent property, is at the rear. There are openings within the side elevation which faces the gable
however these are not principle windows, and the main source of light is from the rear window. It is
therefore considered that there would be no loss of light into this room and subsequently no loss of
amenity to this neighbour in this respect.
The proposed rear single storey extension is considered to be acceptable in size and the aspect
distances from the windows in the rear elevation of this would satisfy the minimum requirements of
directly facing windows of habitable rooms with properties on Folly Lane. Visual amenity to the
front would not be affected by the development and it is not considered that the development would
be incongruous in the streetscene.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
Policy HE8 of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘House Extensions’ requires that
where two storey extensions come close to the boundary they should be set back one metre at first
and ground floor level or by two metres at first floor level. The proposed extension complies, as it is
set back 2 metres at first floor level from the front building line of the original house.
I acknowledge the objection of the adjacent occupier however consider that the development would
not have a significant effect upon the amenities of this neighbour, and subsequently recommend
this application for approval. I consider that conditional control is required to ensure that no
openings are formed within the side elevation of the proposed extension in order to protect the
amenities of the adjacent occupier in terms of privacy and overlooking.
I have no objection to the proposal on highway grounds and subsequently recommend that the
application is approved.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the development would not have a significant impact upon the character of the area
nor would it detrimentally impact upon the amenities of nearby occupiers. I consider that the
proposal is in accordance with all of the relevance development plan policies and therefore
recommend approval of the application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03Y Samples of materials
3. Not withstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted
Development Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without
modification) at no time shall any windows or other side openings be formed within the side
elevation of the development hereby permitted without the prior written approval of the Local
Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. To protect the amenities of the adjoining occupiers and to accord with Policy DES7 of the
Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
06/53844/FUL
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
APPLICANT:
Kensington Pub Co Ltd
LOCATION:
Armitage Labour Club Madams Wood Road Worsley M38 0JU
PROPOSAL:
Erection of porch on rear elevation
WARD:
Little Hulton
Description of site and Proposal
This application relates to a private members club on Madams Wood Road in Worsley
The club is situated in a mainly residential area. The property is located on the corner of Madams
Wood Road and Longshaw Drive. Within the grounds is a car park. Access to this car park is off
Longshaw Drive (this will remain the same). To the west, south and north are residential properties.
This application seeks permission for the erection of a porch on the rear elevation of the property.
The porch would measure 1.7m in length, 3.5m in width and 2.8m in height.
The nearest property to the proposed porch is 182 Longshaw Drive. The proposed porch would be
23m from 182 Longshaw Drive.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was refused for use of part of the social club as an off licence and creation of a
new entrance and access ramp by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory panel on 4th February
1999.
The reason for refusal was as follows:
‘The proposed use would have a considerable detrimental impact especially by means of noise and
disturbance that would be generated and as such would be incompatible with the area and the
amenity of the neighbouring residents’
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Services- Have no objections to the application, they have recommended a
condition relating to gas protection and one relating to access and egress through the internal and
external doors of the porch.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2, 4, 6 Wicheaves Crescent
143, 145 Madams Wood Road
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
182 Longshaw Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a petition containing 12 signatures in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:1. Noise and disturbance from patrons of the club when passing
surrounding houses
I have received one letter of support in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:DES1- Respecting Context
DES7- Amenity of users and neighbours
DES8- Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the design of the proposed porch
is acceptable; whether there would be an unacceptable impact neighbours and residents and
whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the UDP. I shall deal with each in
turn.
AMENITY
Policy DES1 of the Adopted UDP states that development will be required to respond to it’s
physical context, respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, by having
regard to the following factors:
the impact on, and relationship to, the existing landscape and any notable landscape or
environmental feature or species; the character, scale and pattern of streets and building
plots, including plot size;
the relationship to existing buildings and other features that contribute to townscape quality;
the impact on, and quality of, views and vistas;
the scale of the proposed development in relationship to its surroundings;
the potential impact of the proposed development on the redevelopment of an adjacent site;
the desirability of protecting an existing building line, or allowing discontinuities that would
improve or enrich the existing townscape and public space;
the street’s vertical and horizontal rhythms;
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
the quality and durability of proposed materials and their appropriateness to both the location
and the type of development; and
the functional compatibility with adjoining land uses.
The proposed porch would be situated on the rear elevation 23m away from the nearest property,
182 Longshaw Drive. The scale of the development is small and the proposed porch would not
project further than the existing rear elevation of the property. The proposed porch would not
impact on any existing landscape, interfere with the charcater of the area or any street patterns. The
proposed porch would not impact on any neighbouring views. This is in accordance with Policy
DES1 of the Adopted UDP.
DESIGN
Policy DES7 of the Adopted UDP states that All new development and alterations and extension to
existing buildings, will be required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in
terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. Development will not be permitted
where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other
developments.
The proposed extension would be constructed from brick, would have double doors and would
have a flat roof. I have recommended a materials to match conditions so the proposed porch is in
keeping with the existing building. The proposed porch would not impact on the neighbouring
properties amenity by way of obstructing daylight or resulting in loss of privacy. This is in
accordance with Policy DES7.
Policy DES 8 of the Adopted UDP states that planning permission will only be granted for
alterations or extensions to buildings that respect the general scale, character, rhythm, proportions,
details and materials of the original structure.
The proposed porch would not be excessive in scale. I have recommended a materials to match
conditions so the proposed porch would be in keeping with the existing building.
OTHER ISSUES
There have been a number of complaints made to the Strategic Director of Environmental Services
regarding noise at The Armitage Club. This resulted in a noise abatement notice being served on the
club. The club representatives have had discussions with Environmental Services, and a number of
mitigation measures have been proposed, including the porch extension.
CONCLUSION
I consider the design of the proposed porch is acceptable and there would be no detrimental impact
on the neighbours and residents of the surrounding properties, the development accords with
Policies DES1, DES7 and DES8 of the Adopted UDP. I therefore recommend the application for
approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same
type, colour and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The extension shall be carried out using the approved materials.
3. No development shall commence unless and until a gas protection scheme has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The extension shall be constructed
in accordance with the approved scheme and maintained as such there after.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
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. A minimum level of gas protection should be provided on the proposed development. This
should follow best practice construction industry guidance such as CIRIA report 149,
characteristic situation number 2. In order to meet this condition the protection should include
ventilation of confined spaces within building, well constructed ground slab, proprietary gas
membrane and minimum penetration of ground slab by services. Any membranes installed
should be strictly adhere to manufacturers recommendations. Should further authoriative and
scientific information be provided that proves there is no such gas risk then the need for such
protection may be reviewed. The plans for the gas membrane should be submitted and
approved by the Local Authority before development commences.
For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the
Environment Directorate (Tel:0161 737 0551)
APPLICATION No:
06/53224/FUL
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
APPLICANT:
Vermont Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
Land West Of Damask Avenue On West Of Adelphi Street
Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 27 storey mixed use development comprising 221
residential units, 2973sq.m of A1,A3,A4 and B1 retail/office
floorspace together with 121 basement car parking spaces, new
riverside walkway and construction of new vehicular and
pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
BACKGROUND
Members will recall that this application was presented to the Panel in December with a
recommendation for refusal based on the proposed materials and the appearance of the main tower
building. The Panel agreed to the applicant’s request for a deferral of the decision to enable a firm
of architects of international repute to input into the scheme to improve the development. Alsop
architects have been working on the scheme alongside the applicant’s original architects and
following discussions with the URC and Urban Vision the following scheme is presented.
The main alterations to the previous scheme are
1. Revised elevations of the tower
2. Different materials for the tower
3. An increase in height of the tower
4. An increase in the amount of commercial floorspace
5. Alterations to the residential mix
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to vacant land on the western side of Adelphi Street that lies between the
road and the Irwell river. The site is in a prominent location and is highly visible from both the A6
along Crescent and from the Meadows. The rectangular site covers 0.57 hectare and is bounded to
the north by a wide pedestrian walkway beyond which is residential development and to the south
by vacant land that is also the subject of a planning application for redevelopment. To the east is
the University owned Adelphi Building and to the north of that building, semi-detached properties
on Damask Avenue. The site overlooks the University Meadows. There are well established
residential areas to the north and east and on the south side of Adelphi Street beyond the immediate
vicinity of the site that consist mainly of post-war high density housing predominantly two storeys
in height. The site measures approximately 135m by 50m and is currently occupied by a vacant
industrial shed and a three storey 1950s depot building. The existing buildings on the site are
falling into disrepair and there has been some recent demolition on the site as a result of a recent
fire. The site falls 4.5m over its length from north to south and has a cross fall of 1.5m towards the
river along the southern boundary and 1m towards the river along the northern boundary.
Planning permission for mixed use development and a tower of 24 storeys was granted by the Panel
on the adjacent site at the meeting in December (06/53226/FUL). Alsop architects have designed
the tower on this application site mindful of the approval on the adjacent site.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
The scale of buildings around the site varies from the multi storey Maxwell Building across the
Meadows to the two and three storey housing to the north of the site.
There is no dominant style of buildings in the vicinity of the site with existing buildings ranging
from derelict industrial buildings to the north and south to the distinctive Victorian former Salford
Royal Hospital to the south west with its modern extension closer to this site. There are clusters of
older listed buildings around Bank Place to the south and west of the site that form the historic grain
to the wider Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area.
It is proposed to demolish all the existing buildings on the site and erect mixed use development
with 2973sq.m of commercial floorspace on lower floors and residential accommodation on upper
floors and away from the key road frontage. The development would incorporate basement parking
and public realm areas including a new riverside walkway and piazza. The commercial floorspace
would be capable of subdivision and permission is sought for A1 retail, A3 restaurant/café, A4
drinking and B1 office use. The applicant has stated that it is intended that no more than 650sq.m of
the commercial floorspace would be used by A1, A3 or A4 uses and that this would ensure that just
under half of the commercial space would be offices. This commercial space represents
approximately 18% of the total net floorspace of the proposal (previously 9%).
The development would also provide 221 dwellings (previously 223) at a density of 386 dwellings
per hectare.
The mix of dwelling types is as follows:69 one-bed apartments (31%) (previously 75 and 34%)
128 two-bed apartments (58%) (previously 126 and 56%)
20 three-bed apartments (9%) (previously 18 and 8%)
4 four-bed townhouses (2%) (the same as previously)
All of the two bed dwellings are over 64sq.m in floor area and therefore over 69% of the dwellings
have a floor area well in excess of 57sq.m.
A total of 121 parking spaces would be provided and vehicular access would be from Adelphi
Street (previously 110). There is a 5% disabled parking space provision as well as provision of
secure cycle storage.
The proposal seeks to respond to the site by incorporating two principal elements. Firstly a four
storey ‘U’ shaped block with active ground floor elevations facing Adelphi Street and the piazza,
and with a seven storey block set back from the Adelphi Street frontage facing the River Irwell.
The ends of this block reduce in height at the northern end of the site in response to the proximity of
the adjacent low-rise housing. The second element is a 27 storey tower (previously 23 storeys)
adjacent to the southern boundary of the site and the proposed vehicular crossing over the River
Irwell. The public piazza would be formed between these two principal elements of the scheme
with a private courtyard being formed in the centre of the ‘U’ shaped block. The bridge does not
form part of this application.
The closest dwellings that face the site are those on Linen Court to the north that would be 17m
from the four storey element of the building, 23m from the seven storey element and 90m from the
proposed tower.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
The material palette has been considerably improved in this revised scheme. The base of the
smaller buildings in the scheme would be sandstone with terracotta cladding to the lower storeys.
The tower would be a mix of full height facetted glazing to the lower four commercial storeys with
glazing and coloured panels to the upper storeys, with each of the residential storeys having a
500mm brise soliel. At the top of the building there would be a storey height glazed illuminated
screen that would both serve to screen plant and equipment, provide a safe working environment
for maintenance and act as a beacon. Previously the materials for the tower were glazing and metal.
Pedestrian access within and around the site is to be enhanced as part of the development through
the provision of the riverside walkway and the new public space within the development.
Pedestrian entry to all parts of the development is centred on the public square between the two
main buildings, with level external access being available to this square from Adelphi Street and
ramped access being available from the riverside path. The four townhouses have frontages facing
the river and have individual front doors opening onto the riverside path. Access to these dwellings
can also be gained from the basement car park.
With regard to sustainability the applicant has stated that the development aspires to achieve a ‘very
good’ ECO homes rating.
The applicant has undertaken an employment analysis that shows that the proposals would
represent a significant increase in employment activity on the site (based on use of the existing
buildings on the site).
The applicant has submitted statements on contaminated land, traffic, sunlight, acoustics, wind,
archaeology and bats with the application. The sunlight report has been revised to take account of
the increase in height of the tower.
SITE HISTORY
A full planning application for the redevelopment of the site was first lodged in October 2004
(04/49408/FUL). This was a mixed use scheme including 295 dwellings. This application was
withdrawn in January 2005.
The same scheme but with additional information was resubmitted in January 2005
(04/49880/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends conditions regarding
contaminated land and noise.
United Utilities – No objections providing the site is drained on a separate system with only foul
drainage connected into the foul sewer..
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – The site is within Central Salford URC’s
Primary Transformation Area as identified by the URC Vision and Regeneration Framework,
which is the focus of the URC’s activities in Central Salford.
Specifically, it falls within the Chapel Street and Crescent Transformation Area where the objective
is to restore and revitalise Chapel Street as the heart of Salford and revitalise the area’s cultural
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
assets as unique catalysts for attracting creative people and enterprise. From Exchange Greengate
to the University of Salford, Salford’s creative quarter will be a pedestrian friendly destination for a
variety of activities, including shopping, working, promenading, creativity and enjoying urban life.
The relevant priority project within this area is the creation of a vibrant new urban quarter centred
upon the University of Salford and Crescent District, where new commercial, residential and
University related development, including ground floor retail development and research facilities
will combine with the provision of new high quality public realm. The current application, by
introducing a population to the area and providing space for ground floor commercial units,
certainly supports these objectives.
There are also two related priority projects: 1) the creation of a boulevard along Crescent and
Chapel Street, involving calming the traffic flow and implementing a landscaping plan and 2) the
revitalisation of the Meadows, ensuring that this large area of open space can be fully used as an
important community asset and one of the principal open spaces within the city.
The site is also within the Irwell Corridor Transformation Area where the objective is to celebrate
the river as a distinctive landscape feature that will be accessible and integral to outdoor life; to link
Central Salford to its neighbourhoods and to improve the attractiveness of key sites for
development.
The relevant priority project in this area is the river walkway being taken forward in the joint
Salford/Manchester ‘Irwell Riverside – Connecting Two Great Cities’ Living Landmarks Big
Lottery Bid, which has now been approved through to the second round. The river walkway and
key sites along it will be improved to a standard that will provide functional spaces for land and
water-based recreation and focal points. The current planning application supports these
objectives, by making provision for a river walkway.
The applicants have revised their previous proposal for this site in line with advice from Urban
Vision and Central Salford URC. The applicants have generally adopted the principles of the
Adelphi Development Framework in their proposed scheme, in terms of the mix of uses and design
aspirations, and in addition providing land to facilitate (i) the creation of a boulevard on Adelphi
Street, (ii) the creation of a riverside walkway and (iii) the future provision of a new vehicular and
a pedestrian bridge to cross the River Irwell. The payment of a half share each of the estimated cost
of the road bridge abutments has also been agreed with the applicants as part of the Section 106
Agreement.
The URC now supports the revised application subject to the satisfactory resolution of a number of
outstanding issues, which may be resolved in either amendments to the planning application or the
drafting of the legal agreement. These issues are:
·
Compatibility of the setting out of both schemes with:
a) the general arrangement of the preparatory road bridge design both above and
below ground
b) other elements of the Adelphi Development Framework, including the 2m set back
on Adelphi Street and at least a 6m set back adjacent to the riverside.
·
Control over the strip of land on the north boundary that is required for the creation of
the approach road for the road bridge. Ownership is sought. If this is not possible,
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
reservation of the land for seven years is sought, with appropriate access and
construction rights.
·
Heads of terms for the Section 106 Agreement need to set out clearly the relationship
between Salford City Council and the developers over the delivery of the road bridge
and foot bridge including full co-operation over:
i) the detailed design of the bridge, including the disclosure of all relevant information,
site surveys and ground investigations
ii)enabling and construction works, including access to sites, ability to carry out
abutment works, other enabling works and construction both during the developer’s
construction periods and after their completion. Indemnity for later disruption will be
sought.
·
Full co-operation with Salford City Council / Urban Vision / Central Salford URC over
the design, specification and implementation of the Irwell City Park Riverside
Walkway is required.
·
Full co-operation with Salford City Council / Urban vision / Central Salford URC over
the design, specification and implementation of the Adelphi Boulevard is required.
·
The proposed materials need to be agreed via a condition to ensure that they are of a
suitable quality for these highly visible and prominent sites.
The above comments are the formal comments of the URC based on the previous scheme.
Representatives of the URC have been involved in the latest discussions with Alsop architects and
have verbal expressed their support for the current proposals. Any further written comments will
be reported to the Panel at the meeting.
Environment Agency – Now has no objection in principle to the proposed development but
requests that conditions be attached regarding contamination.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – There is an archaeological interest for this site.
Adelphi Sizing Works is shown on the 1844-9 OS 5 foot map as well as early examples of workers
housing in the form of two ‘courts’. These structures are also shown on Bancks’ map of 1831.
Various features of industrial archaeological interest are shown including boiler houses, dye tubs
and a reservoir. The archaeology of the textile industry is very important to the Manchester and
Salford area and it is believed that this site has considerable below ground archaeological potential.
A condition requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological works is required.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Unit – Objects to the proposed development.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – The site is within reasonable walking
distance of the bus stops on Chapel Street / Crescent (A6) that form part of the Manchester – Eccles
Quality Bus Corridor. These bus stops offer access to frequent services to a large number of
destinations including Manchester, Eccles, Bolton, Swinton and Leigh. The bus stops on Adelphi
Street offer access to a Monday-Saturday hourly daytime service between Manchester, Broughton,
Pendleton, Hope Hospital and Swinton. Future residents and staff of this proposal would therefore
have access to a choice of travel mode, which should help to reduce the number of car journeys
otherwise generated by this development. Furthermore, the use of this site for high density
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
residential development is supported as it maximises the benefits of the good public transport
accessibility.
Salford Crescent railway station is currently just beyond reasonable walking distance from the site
(800m in this instance). It would be possible to reduce the walking distance to less than 800m and
improve the public transport accessibility of the site with a combination of bridge links across the
Irwell and a safe, convenient pedestrian environment between the site and Salford Crescent station.
The supporting information refers to new vehicle and pedestrian bridges from the site across the
river to Spike Island but no reference is made to the provision of a pedestrian bridge on the other
side of Spike Island across to the University campus south of Peel Park. A bridge in this location
would help complete the walking route between the site and Salford Crescent station improving
access to rail services for both future employees and residents of the development. Therefore
GMPTE suggest that it would be reasonable to seek a financial contribution from the applicant
towards the cost of improving this walking route.
It is encouraging to note the relatively low level of car parking provision accompanying this
application. In an area well served by public transport such as this site, the aspiration should be to
have a reduced amount of car parking in new developments in order to assist in the promotion of
more sustainable travel patterns, and to capitalise on the advantages of the public transport
provision in the area.
It is important to influence people’s travel patterns at the beginning of occupation and therefore,
although the site is accessible by public transport, GMPTE would expect a travel plan to
accompany this application, to help encourage future occupants to use sustainable modes of travel.
The travel plan should look at staff, resident and visitor travel and aim to maximise the benefits of
the site’s location in relation to the public transport network; to reduce the number of car journeys
that could otherwise be generated by this development; and also to seek to facilitate access by
means other than the car.
Given the total amount of commercial accommodation proposed, it is considered appropriate that
an ‘umbrella’ travel plan be requested to cover all the commercial development on the site with the
aim of reducing the amount of staff travel by car. It is appreciated that at this stage there may not be
particular occupiers in mind, however, an ‘interim travel plan’ could be submitted with an
undertaking that a ‘final travel plan’ will be submitted and adopted by individual occupiers, once
the site is occupied.
Residential travel plan measures could contribute to raising awareness of the public transport
services in the area and encouraging their use, these could include the following:· a buyers / tenants pack including public transport and cycle route information, location
maps of nearby services
· provision of a free one year travel pass with the purchase price / rental of each residential
unit
· development of an internet site with public transport information
· personalised journey planning
· improved pedestrian access to public transport facilities
It is suggested that any development, submission, implementation and monitoring of a travel plan
be attached as a condition of planning consent.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
CABE – CABE were consulted on the City Council’s original masterplan exercise for the Adelphi
area and commented on the previous detailed application. This submitted scheme is very different
from that previous scheme and therefore I have only included CABE’s comments as they related to
the site in general and the masterplan:We applaud the initial moves by Salford to regenerate Chapel Street and turn the River Irwell into
a public amenity, but we think it is incumbent on the URC and the planning authority to provide
clear development guidance addressing quantum, scale and height within the broader context of
the site before major schemes such as this one can be assessed. This is particularly important given
the opportunity to provide a high quality, public river walkway and access to open space across the
river. Given that this site and the one adjacent to it are the first major developments within this
regeneration area, it is important that a high design quality precedent is set. We have reviewed this
scheme in the knowledge of its relationship to the development proposed on the adjacent site, but
we would like to question how these schemes fit into the URC vision.
We think that any proposed masterplan should carefully consider a strategy for the river front,
access to it and any position of the new bridge links.
We support the mix of uses proposed. However, nothing that we have seen convinces us that this
level of development is appropriate for this site. We acknowledge that this site is complex due to
change in levels but this should not be an excuse for accepting lower design standards.
In conclusion, we would recommend a fundamental rethink of the design approach to developing
this site. In our view it would be beneficial if Salford City Council and the URC prioritise
establishing a robust development framework and unsure that development proposals coming
forward will collectively deliver a sustainable, high quality place that builds on its unique
character and assets.
Ramblers’ Association – Given the attractive provisions envisaged for pedestrians, especially the
riverside walkway, we support this imaginative proposal.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified of both the submitted and amended plans:
Salford University
Adelphi public house
1 to 20 Damask Avenue
50 to 62 Cannon Street
37 to 57 Meadow Road
1 to 44 (incl) Linen Court
100 Silk Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from the University in response to the submitted planning
application publicity. The following issues have been raised:-
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
Concern that the height and location will severely limit potential development of the
Adelphi Building site on Peru Street by generating possible objections from a residential
location dwarfing our site.
The proposed development does not site well with the spirit of the Adelphi Development
Framework document as 25 stories is too many and such an edifice along the river frontage
must detract from its potential.
Design and height are inappropriate in the environs of the river and adjacent parks.
A precedent would be set for other developments with riverside frontages attaining such
heights nearer to the A6 with such potential future developments seriously compromising
any vision by affecting the skyline when viewed from within the area and from the
Meadows in particular.
There would be significant increases in traffic that would seriously compromise students,
staff and visitors to the University’s buildings.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings
DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific: MX1 – Development in Mixed-Use Areas
Other policies: ST7 Mixed Use Development, ST11 Location of New Development, DES1
Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES3 Design of Public Space, DES4
Relationship of Development to Public Space, DES5 Tall Buildings, DES6 Waterside
Development, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime, H1 Supply of
Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development, A1 Transport
Assessments and Travel Plans, A8 Impact on the Highway Network, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle
and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, DEV6 Incremental Development, EN6 Irwell
Valley, EN7D Wildlife Corridors, EN16 Flood Risk and Surface Water, EN17A Resource
Conservation, R5 Countryside and Access Network
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1 Regional Development Principles, MCR2 Regional centre and Inner Areas of Manchester
City Region, MCR4 Northern Part of the Manchester City Region.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the development is
acceptable, whether the mix of uses is acceptable, whether the scale, massing and design of the
development is of sufficiently high quality in this important part of the city, whether the highway
situation is adequate and whether the bridge is properly located, whether there is sufficient parking
and open space provision and whether the proposed materials are acceptable.
Principle of the Development
Policy H1 requires that an adequate supply of housing be brought forward with higher densities
being required at accessible locations such as this site. Policy H1 also requires development to
contribute toward a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure
and affordability.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
Policy ST11 seeks to ensure that new development is located on the most sustainable sites within
the City and that less sustainable sites are only brought forward when necessary. The policy is
based on the sequential approaches to development that are set out in national policy guidance and
policy DP1 of Regional Planning Guidance for the North-West.
Policy MX1/1 states that the intention of the Council is to develop this area of the City as a vibrant
mixed-use area with a broad range of uses and activities. Appropriate uses include housing, offices
and retail uses. In determining whether a proposed mix of uses is appropriate, regard will be had to
a number of factors, including the positive impact of the development on the regeneration of the
wider area, the use on adjoining sites and the extent to which the proposed development would
support the objective of maintaining a mix and balance of uses throughout the mixed-use area, the
prominence of the location and the existing and previous use of the site. Paragraph 2 of the
reasoned justification to policy MX1 states that:In particular the policy will be used to ensure that residential development does not unduly
predominate, to the detriment of the vitality and sustainability of the area. On larger sites,
single use residential developments are unlikely to be acceptable, and a significant
proportion of non-residential uses will normally be required.
Policy DP3 of the Regional Planning Guidance for the North West states that new development
must demonstrate good design quality and respect for its setting.
The URC’s published draft Vision and Regeneration Framework identifies this site and the
immediate surrounding area as a key riverfront urban and neighbourhood node comprising public
realm and open space. The Framework sets the stage for ensuring the highest quality of urban and
architectural excellence. The main proposals of the Framework include:i) that the River Irwell corridor must become a primary open space system defined by world class
urban projects and parks. The Oldfield Road, Adelphi Street, Silk Street axis will become a
primary north/south boulevard linking Salford Quays, Ordsall, Chapel Street, Middlewood, the
Bolton-Bury Canal, the River Irwell and the Lower Broughton renewal area.
ii) the Meadows will be the green heart of Chapel Street – a boulevard will become a beautiful
terrace, overlooking a high quality, landscaped, public space by the riverside within walking
distances of the centre of Salford and Manchester’s commercial district.
iii) historic buildings will be reclaimed and renewed and high quality new buildings and spaces
created to form a new heart in the old city.
The City Council’s Adelphi Development Framework states that the regeneration of the Adelphi
Street area should result in a vibrant mixed-use area where University functions are complemented
by residential development and other commercial, leisure and retail uses. It should be characterised
by the best modern architecture, high quality public spaces and a distinctive waterside frontage. It
should be an area where there is on-street activity and pedestrian movement.
It also states that development of the area should provide a mix of uses: residential, retail,
commercial, leisure and educational uses. Sites that are currently occupied by, or were previously
used for, employment uses must provide appropriate replacement floorspace. Single use residential
schemes are unlikely to be acceptable and should include a significant proportion of non-residential
uses. Active uses should be located at ground floor level on Adelphi Street and to public open
spaces. Active frontages should be provided on the riverside walkway.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
The document also states that within the residential provision of mixed-use schemes, 10% of units
should comprise 3 bedroom apartments, no more than 15% of apartments should be studios and at
least 50% of units should be more than 57sq.m in size.
The Framework states that new development should be of high density to reflect the location of the
site within the regional centre and states that new development should provide:
· building heights of no more than five storeys along Adelphi Street, decreasing to two-three
storeys adjoining the Trinity area where lower height buildings predominate.
· Taller buildings are encouraged behind the Adelphi Street elevation, at gateway sites and to
public spaces providing they are well designed.
· Variety in massing (and other visual treatment) to ensure that large developments appear as
a series of individual buildings.
The site is previously developed in an accessible location close the A6 main bus route and within
acceptable walking distance of the Regional Centre. The principle of the redevelopment of the site
is therefore acceptable and in accordance with national government guidance and outline planning
permission has already been given for the residential development of this site. The application
proposes a development of one, two and three bed apartments and proposes a size of apartment in
excess of the standards set out in the draft supplementary planning document on housing. The
wider surrounding area is characterised by predominantly family housing. I consider that in this
location close to the regional centre, the level of provision is appropriate and in accordance with
policy H1.
The Adelphi Street area includes a number of key sites for which the City Council and the Central
Salford URC are keen to promote a design-led approach to regeneration. The future of this area is
to be looked at in conjunction with the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy and the URC’s Vision
for Central Salford. The site lies within a very important area for the City and it is important that
the area is developed in a comprehensive manner that is planned and coordinated to maximise the
benefits of each site. The City Council’s Adelphi Vision for Development has been adopted by the
City Council and, although not a supplementary planning document, weight should be attached to
it. It is important that no individual development should compromise the successful
implementation of the comprehensive redevelopment of this important part of the City.
An analysis of the floor space given over to individual uses in the development shows that
approximately 18% of the gross floorspace in the proposed scheme is given over to non-residential
uses. This has been doubled from the submitted scheme and it is considered that this represent a
good mix of uses in accordance with policy MX1.
Design, Scale and Massing
Policy DES1 states that developments will be required to respond to their physical context, respect
the positive character of the local area and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness via
a number of factors that include the scale and size of the building, its contribution in the street scene
and the quality of the proposed materials.
Policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public space,
that public space must be designed to:
i) have a clear role and purpose, responding to established or proposed local economic, social,
cultural and environmental needs;
ii) reflect and enhance the character and identity of the area;
iii) form an integral part of, and provide an appropriate setting for, surrounding developments;
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
iv) be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit;
v) be of an appropriate scale;
vi) connect to established pedestrian routes and other public spaces; and
vii) minimise, and make provision for, maintenance requirements.
Policy DES5 states that tall buildings will be permitted where they meet a number of criteria.
Those criteria include that the scale of the development is appropriate to its context and location;
that the location is highly accessible to public transport, walking and cycling; that the building
would relate positively to and interact well with the adjacent public realm; that the building would
be of the highest quality design; that the building would make a positive addition to the skyline and
would not detract from important views and that there would be no unacceptable impact on the
setting of a listed building or on the character or appearance of a conservation area. The reasoned
justification for the policy goes on to state that tall buildings are more likely to be appropriate
within the mixed-use areas identified in policy MX1.
Policy DES6 states that all new development adjacent to the River Irwell will be required to
facilitate pedestrian access to, along and, where appropriate, across the waterway by the provision
of:
i) A safe, attractive and overlooked waterside walkway, accessible to all and at all times of
the day, where this is compatible with the commercial role of the waterway;
ii) Pedestrian access links between the waterside walkway and other key pedestrian routes;
and
iii) Where appropriate, ground floor uses that generate pedestrian activity, and larger waterside
spaces to act as focal points for public activity
It also states that development will be required to, where possible, protect, improve or provide
wildlife habitats. In addition it states that all built development along the waterway will be required
to
· face onto the water and incorporate entrances onto the waterfront where appropriate;
· be of the highest standard of design, creating a positive addition to the waterside
environment and providing an attractive elevation to it;
· be of a scale sufficient to frame the edge of the waterside; and
· enhance views from, of, across and along the waterway, and provide visual links to the
waterside from surrounding areas.
The proposed materials that are used are of good quality and are now ones that are appropriate to
both commercial and residential elements of the tower. The use of full height glazing to the four
commercial storeys of the tower provides a strong entirely appropriate commercial face to the street
level facades of the tower.
The treatment of the upper storeys is deliberately designed both to provide a harmonious and
simple composition but one that is richly varied in terms of colour and materials. It is considered
that the form and appearance of the tower has been considerably improved from that presented to
the Panel previously.
The architects for the scheme have sought to achieve a high quality of design and have made
considerable amendments to the scheme to improve it. It is considered that a high quality design
has now been achieved and I am satisfied that the proposed materials would be of the highest
quality required in accordance with the development plan.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
Impact on the adjacent Conservation Area
The site adjoins the Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area on its southern boundary. The site
beyond is another vacant development site though, as is the site to the south east across Adelphi
Street. The cluster of listed buildings around St Philips Church are some distance from the site.
The proposed tower would be located on that part of the site furthest from the Conservation Area
and the height of development along Adelphi Street has deliberately been kept to four storeys to
maintain the urban grain of the area. I do not therefore consider that the proposed development has
any detrimental effect on the Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area.
Effects of the development on neighbours
Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
I have received one objection regarding the impact of the proposed development but this relates to a
University owned building that is currently occupied. I am satisfied that the proposed development
would not prejudice any possible future redevelopment of the Universities Adelphi Building.
The nearest existing residential properties that face the site are 17m from the four storey element of
the proposed building. These dwellings currently face a two storey building that is 14m from the
dwellings. A 4m wide landscaped pedestrian route separates the rear boundary of the dwellings
from the site. There would be no habitable room windows in the proposed development that would
face any neighbouring dwelling. I have received no objections from any residential occupiers and
the siting and massing of the development has been amended to reduce the size of the building
where it is nearest to existing dwellings. Given the circumstances outlined above I do not therefore
consider that there would be any significant detrimental effect on the amenity of existing
neighbours.
With regard to future development on the adjacent site to the south the architects for both schemes
have worked together to ensure that both schemes are compatible. Interface distances between the
two developments are such that habitable windows would not face each other directly and would be
at least 14m away from each other.
In conclusion, I consider that the scale and massing of the proposed development is such that there
would be no significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring property.
Highways, Parking and Public Transport
Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks maximum parking standards for all
developments. Within the emerging planning framework and in line with central government
advice there is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.
In July 2006 the Lead Member for Planning considered a report on the location of the proposed
road bridge across the river Irwell from Adelphi Street.
The City Council has been minded for some years to secure the provision of a road bridge over the
river to connect the Meadows and Spike Island with Adelphi Street thereby providing a route from
the communities in Lower Broughton to the rest of Salford. The new bridge is one of the
accessibility improvements identified in the Lower Broughton Design Code Supplementary
Planning Document and an indicative siting is shown within a broad area of land in the vicinity of
the junction of Peru Street and Adelphi Street.
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
The report to Lead Member set out the two main options for the position of the bridge.
1. Within the site owned by this applicant (as shown on the previous application)
2. Between the two development sites (as shown on this application)
The preferred position expressed in the report was the second option and it was this option that was
preferred by the Lead Member.
The traffic impact assessment submitted by the applicant shows that the proposed development
would not have a material impact on the local highway network.
There are 110 spaces provided within the development that represents 50% of the apartments
having a space. It is likely that people buying the apartments are doing so because of their
proximity to Chapel Street and the regional centre. These people may well not own, or have need
for a car. In addition there are now shared ownership schemes being set up within the regional
centre and it is anticipated in the near future that residents of apartments such as this will be able to
access cars as and when they are needed thereby further reducing the need for households to have
their own vehicle that is exclusively for their use alone.
I have received objections to the level of parking proposed that there is insufficient parking
provided for the proposed development. The parking levels are in accordance with policy in this
accessible location and I consider the parking levels proposed to be acceptable and would consider
a greater level of provision to be contrary to both good practice, government advice and planning
policy. In terms of highway safety I have no objections to the submitted scheme.
Open Space Provision and Landscaping
In accordance with policy H8 of the UDP and the draft SPD on planning obligations open space and
children’s play space can be accommodated off site through a financial contribution. This
application proposes 618 bed spaces, which equates to a commuted sum value of £333,720. In
addition, in accordance with the Chapel Street SPG, a contribution of £1000 per apartment would
be generated by the development for environmental improvements, a total of £554,720.
The scheme provides significant areas of public realm that include the piazza and the riverside
walkway. In addition there is an approximately 40m by 18m private internal landscaped courtyard.
Other Objections Raised
i) That 25 (as originally notified to residents) stories is too many and that the scheme amounts to
overdevelopment.
This is a location close to the regional centre where higher dwelling densities should be
encouraged and where it is right to provide apartments. The scheme contributes to the mix
of dwellings in this particular area and the siting and height of the building are considered
to be entirely appropriate. Alsop architects have deliberately argued that a slight difference
in height between the two towers is necessary and I do not disagree with this view. This
has produced a scheme that is of high density but it is considered that this is appropriate.
ii) That the development does not accord with the Adelphi Development Framework
The development is entirely consistent with the Development Framework with regard to
scale and massing. The Framework does not specify maximum heights of any proposed
gateway building.
iii) That the tower will be inappropriate in the environs of the river and adjacent parks.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
It is considered that the Meadows is a potentially huge area of public open space that needs
to be framed in part by tall buildings. The two towers on either side of the new road bridge
will appropriately gate and mark this new river crossing and will serve as beacons in the
wider area. In addition I would point out that the Meadows covers a huge area,
approximately 4.8 hectares. The distance from the Maxwell building to this proposed
tower is approximately 350m. It is considered that within this context two towers of this
proposed height would be appropriate and necessary and in conformity with the Adelphi
Development Framework.
I consider that the objections of the Police Architectural Liaison Unit could be overcome through a
condition regarding ‘Secured by Design’ status.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The scheme has been considerably improved as a result of pre-application discussions and if
approved environmental improvements to the value of £554,720 would be generated.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the development is
acceptable, whether the mix of uses is acceptable, whether the scale, massing and design of the
development is of sufficiently high quality in this important part of the city, whether the highway
situation is adequate and whether the bridge is properly located, whether there is sufficient parking
and open space provision and whether the proposed materials are acceptable. All of these main
issues have been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant including the issue of the proposed
materials that was such a concern on the submitted scheme. It is considered that Alsop architects
have proposed a revised design that would result in a building of the high quality required by
adopted planning policy. I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to the
following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development or demolition shall take place until the applicant has secured the
implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of
investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such development and demolition as is approved shall only take place in
accordance with the approved programme of archaeological works.
3. Prior to the commencement of development, an assessment that determines the external noise
levels from surrounding roads and all other noise sources that the proposed residential elements
will be subjected to (day time and night time) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The developer shall detail what steps have to be taken to
mitigate the disturbance from the above. Once agreed, all identified noise control measures
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
shall be implemented prior to first occupation and thereafter retained at all times unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4. Any fume extraction system shall be designed so that there are no detectable odours at the
nearest residential properties.
5. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 18 months of the commencement of development and
thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs dying within five years of the initial implementation of the planting scheme shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
6. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of
all external elevations of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include the construction on site
of a typical 3m by 3m section, or such similar size as is agreed in writing by the local planning
authority, of the facade of the residential levels of the tower using samples of all the approved
materials. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples.
7. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
8. No development authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until the Local
Planning Authority has received and approved in writing a site operating statement in relation
to provision of street sweeping, permitted hours for construction works, delivery of materials
and delivery and collection of equipment and the provision and use of on-site parking for
contractors' and workpeople's vehicles and no development or activities related or incidental
thereto shall take place on the site in contravention of such site operating statement unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
9. Standard Condition M08 Site Investigation - new
10. The building and/or any externally mounted plant and equipment shall be insulated in
accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority before any such retail or commercial unit requiring such plant or equipment is first
brought into use. Any insulation required by the scheme shall be completed before such
premises are brought into use and shall be retained at all times thereafter. The level of
insulation to be provided and/or noise permitted from fixed plant and equipment shall be such
that the rated level of noise emitted (LAeq,t) is below the existing background level (LA90,t)
by at least 5dB(A) at the nearest noise sensitive properties.
11. Prior to the commencement of development an air quality assessment shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, The assessment shall predict the effect
of the development on air quality and risk of exposure for the following pollutants; NOx and
PM10. Details of measures to be put in place or actions taken to reduce the impact of the
development on air quality shall be included in the assessment and shall be implemented in full
prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
12. Prior to the commencement of development a travel plan shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such travel plan shall include objectives and targets,
and, where appropriate, measures to promote and facilitate public transport use, measures to
reduce car use and its management, measures to promote and facilitate cycling and walking,
promotion of practices and facilities to reduce the need for travel, monitoring and review
mechanisms, travel plan coordination, and provision of travel information and marketing. The
initiatives and measures contained within the approved travel plan shall be implemented prior
to the first occupation of any dwelling or commercial or retail unit unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
13. Within 12 months of the commencement of the development a lighting scheme for the building
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved
scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and retained
thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
14. The development shall not be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing all the following
matters including; sustainable construction techniques; natural ventilation techniques;
sustainable urban drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar heat gain and use of renewable
energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability matters have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first occupation of any
dwelling the approved scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be retained and maintained
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
15. Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, no development shall commence
until details of a scheme to protect and enhance the riverside habitat value of the site for flora
and fauna has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full within six months of the first
occupation of the development or commensurate with the provision of the landscaping,
whichever is the later.
16. Any A3/A4 hot food premises brought into use shall ONLY be operated between the hours of
8am and midnight on any day.
17. The development shall not be commenced unless and until a Crime Prevention Plan has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Plan
shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the development and maintained
thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
18. A scheme for the provision of recycling facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the
occupation of any dwelling and shall be maintained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
19. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme demonstrating, as a minimum, an Eco
Homes or BREEAM "very good" rating shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved scheme unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
20. 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,
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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 UDP and as required by the Chapel
Street Planning Obligations Development Control Policy Note, 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 and public realm
improvements.
21. The gross floorspace of any retail use falling within Classes A1 - A4 of the Use Classes Order
1987 (as amended) shall not exceed 2,415 square metres, unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority and the gross floorspace of any single Class A1 retail unit shall
not exceed 500 square metres, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To make a record of the archaeological remains for archive and research purposes in
accordance with policy CH5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
6. Standard Reason R008B Development-Building in vicinity
7. Standard Reason R012B Parking only within curtilage
8. Standard Reason R005B Amenity - neighbours
9. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
10. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
11. Standard Reason R028B Interests of public safety
12. To reduce car travel and increase accessibility by public transport, walking and cycling in
accordance with policy A1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
13. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
14. In order to address recycling and sustainability issues in accordance with policy EN22 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
15. To enhance the value of the riverside environment for flora and fauna in accordance with
policy EN9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
16. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
17. To ensure the design of the scheme discourages crime in accordance with Policy DES10 of the
City of Salford Revised Unitary Development Plan.
18. In accordance with policy EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
19. To ensure that the development accords with sustainability principles in accordance with
Unitary Development Plan policy EN22.
20. 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.
21. In accordance with PPS6 and policy S2 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The noise assessment referred to in condition 3 shall have due regard to Planning Policy
Guidance Note 24 - Planning and Noise and achieving BS8233:1999 in all habitable rooms.
2. The air quality assessment referred to in condition 11 should have regard to the air quality
objectives set out in the National Air Quality Strategy (Air Quality Regulations 2000). The
datasets and methodologies necessary to undertake the assessment should be agreed with
Salford City Council Environmental Protection Service before undertaking the assessment. A
dispersion model capable of taking into adequate account all relevant emissions sources within
Salford including point, line and area sources should be used for this assessment. The air
quality assessment should address the opening year of the development and years 2010 and
2020 with and without the development. Pollutant concentrations should be estimated at
locations where the Air Quality Strategy objectives apply. These are locations where members
of the public will be exposed to the pollution over the appropriate timescales of the objective.
The report detailing the results of the air quality assessment should provide a transparent
account of the modelling undertaken, assumptions made and validation of results.
3. 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.
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the need to intercept surface water draining from the
development prior to its entering the highway across a footway, to meet the requirements of
Section 103 of the Highways Act 1980.
5. Please note that a separate system of drainage is required for this development.
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
APPLICATION No:
06/53857/FUL
APPLICANT:
Seddon Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Adjacent 2a Moorside Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 12 semi-detached dwellings together with associated
landscaping and car parking
WARD:
Worsley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 0.4-hectare site located to the rear of The Sides Medical Centre and 2A
Moorside Road, a two-storey office block. The site is a brownfield site upon which a number of
mature trees are sited, 54 of which are protected by Tree Preservation Order Number 255. Access to
the site is via Moorside Road. The site slopes away from north to south by approximately 2.35m
and from east to west by approximately 1.9m.
The site is surrounded by residential properties to the north, south and east and by the medical
centre and the office block to the west.
It is proposed to erect 12 two storey semi-detached dwellings, a series of four dwellings running
west to east and a series of eight running north to south. The existing access road would be extended
in order to allow vehicular access to the proposed units. A total of 18 car parking spaces would be
provided on site. In order to accommodate the development it is proposed to fell 24 protected trees
and 19 non-protected trees.
SITE HISTORY
An application for the erection of a terrace of four town houses and two, two-storey buildings
comprising of four flats and seven garages, together with associated landscaping, car parking was
approved in December 2002 (ref 02/44646/FUL).
PUBLICITY
A press notices was published on the 7th of December 2006.
A site notice was posted on the 20th of December 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
15 to 59 (odd) Ashley Drive
6 to 12 (even) Moorside Rd
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
2A Moorside Road
17A, 17B to 33 (odd) Moorside Road
The Sides Medical Centre, Moorside Rd
The Limes, Moorfield Close
1 to 15 (odd) Moorfield Close
1A, 3A and 5A Norwood Drive
2 and 4 Norwood Drive
CONSULTATIONS –
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – No objections
United Utilities – No objections
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 7 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised –
Loss of light
Loss of privacy
Loss of trees
Impact on local wildlife including bats
Noise and disturbance during the construction period
Increased noise and air pollution as a result of the increased traffic flow to the site.
The materials proposed would not respect the surrounding area
The design of the dwellings is basic
Loss of view
The proposal involves the loss of a Greenfield site
Devaluation of property
Concerns over drainage and possible flooding of gardens
The proposals represent an overdevelopment of the site.
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
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
DES11 – Design Statements
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 - Location of New Development
H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
EN13 – Protected Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; whether the loss of trees 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. This is
re-iterated in Draft Policy DP1.
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 being the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
The Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing states that in this area, West Salford, the majority of
units within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
The proposed development site is a Brownfield site and consequently the proposals to redevelop
the site are in accordance with Policy ST11.
With regards to Policy H1 of the adopted UDP and the Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing
and the mix of units proposed the development would provide twelve 3 bedroomed semi-detached
houses. The proposed development is therefore in accordance with Policy H1 and the Council’s
Planning Guidance on Housing, as it would make a positive contribution towards the ability of the
city’s housing stock to meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford.
I also consider that the proposed development density of 30 dwellings per hectare to be acceptable
in this location.
Design –
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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.
It is proposed to erect 2 different dwelling types on site, type A and type B. The type A dwellings
would be two storeys high measuring 4.8m at the eaves and 7m at the ridge. The proposed type B
dwellings would measure 4.8m to the eaves and 7.5m to the ridge. Both sets of properties would be
gable-ended buildings. I am of the opinion that the design, scale and massing of the proposed
dwellings would respect the that of other properties in the vicinity of the site, including those on
Ashley Drive, which are all two storeys in height. Consequently I am of the opinion that the
proposed development would harmonise with its surroundings.
The design of the buildings is of an acceptable standard and in accordance with Policy DES11 a
design statement has been submitted with the application.
The proposed materials would consist of brick, UPVC windows and roofing tiles. I have attached a
condition requiring the submission of samples of materials to be submitted and approved prior to
the commencement of development to ensure that they accord with those of surrounding buildings
and that they are of a suitably high quality.
In the interests of sustainable development I have attached a condition requiring a 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 scheme to be submitted and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact upon the
visual amenity of the area in accordance with policies DES2 and DES11 of the adopted UDP.
Amenity Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
At their closest the proposed dwellings at plots 1 to 4 which run east west across the site, along the
northern boundary of the site would be located 21m from the rear elevation of the properties at 45 to
51 Ashley Drive. A 3m high (approx) wall marks the boundary between the properties at 45 to 51
Ashley Drive and the application site. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposed dwellings at
plots 1 to 4 would not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of the
properties at 45 to 51 Ashley Drive can reasonably expect to enjoy.
The blank gable end of the property at plot 5 would be located 16.8m from the common boundary
with the properties at 41 and 43 Ashley Drive. The introduction of this property would not therefore
have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of this property currently enjoy.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
The properties at plots 5 to 12 that run north south across the site, along the common boundary with
the properties at 17 to 31 (odd) Ashley Drive would be located at least 25.6m from the rear
elevation of these properties. Adequate separation would therefore be maintained between facing
habitable room windows and adequate separation would be maintained to prevent any significant
overshadowing of garden areas occurring.
The blank gable end of the property at plot 12 would be located 1.5m from the common boundary
with The Limes. There would be approx. 18m between the blank gable of the proposed property
and the habitable room windows contained within The Limes. Consequently I am of the opinion
that adequate separation would be maintained to ensure that the dwelling at plot 12 would not form
an overbearing structure. This level of separation would also ensure that the occupants of The
Limes do not experience a significant reduction in the level of light received in their habitable
rooms. The proposed dwelling would run alongside an area of open space at The Limes. This area is
however densely populated by trees and consequently already well shaded. As a result I do not have
any concerns over the situation of the dwelling at plot 12 and its relationship with this area of open
space.
The land to the west of the site is not used for residential purposes.
Policy DES7 also requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level
of amenity.
There would be adequate separation within the site to ensure that future occupants of the proposed
dwellings enjoy a satisfactory level of amenity.
Each of the proposed dwellings would be provided with a reasonable amount of useable amenity
space in the form of a rear garden.
Car Parking Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
One parking space would be provided for each of the proposed dwellings and there would be 6
visitor spaces. I am satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable. The proposed car
parking and access would be laid out in such a way that I do not have any objections to the proposed
development on highway safety grounds as I do not consider that there would be any long term
issues with the increased vehicular traffic flow to and in the vicinity of the site.
Trees Policy EN13 of the adopted UDP relates to protected trees. It states that development that will
result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, protected trees will not be permitted.
The proposed development would result in the loss of 26 protected trees. Of the 26 protected trees
that would be felled 5 need to be felled for arboricultural management reasons or because any value
these trees currently have would be lost within 10 years. These trees are 01255 (holly) 01275
(sycamore), 01297 (Horse Chestnut), 01301 (sycamore) and 01303 (holly).
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
11 of the other protected trees that would be felled have been classified by BS5837 as trees that are
of a low quality and therefore make a limited contribution to the amenity of the area (grade c).
The remaining 8 TPO’d trees that would be removed have not been assessed individually, as they
only make a contribution to the visual amenity of the area in a group. It is not therefore possible to
give these trees an individual grading. Initial inspections outlined in the arboricultural statement
have however indicated that 5 of these trees are poor specimens and consequently it is highly likely
that they would be classified under BS5837 as grade c trees. The other 3 trees that would be felled
are not referred to in the statement and therefore such a judgement cannot be made. However it
should be noted that the removal of these trees would allow for the construction of an access road in
a location that allows the majority of trees within the group to be retained. The removal of these
trees would also allow for a substantial level of replanting.
In addition to felling these trees it is proposed to fell 20 other trees - 14 apple trees running along
the northern boundary of the site, one scotts pine (01251), one holly (01256), one silver birch
(01288), one sycamore (02191), one ash (01300A) and one maple (01308). According to the
BS5837 classification all these trees, with the exception of the sycamore (01291) and the maple
(01308) which are trees of a low quality, need to be felled for arboricultural management reasons or
because any value these trees currently have would be lost within 10 years.
The Councils consultant arborist has inspected the trees and he is of the opinion that as the majority
of the trees on site make a limited contribution to the visual amenity of the wider area.
Consequently he does not have any objections to the proposed tree felling.
In order to protect the trees that would remain on site during the construction period I have attached
a condition requiring protective fencing to be erected around the trees. In addition to this a further
level of protection needs to be afforded to the trees located within close proximity of the proposed
parking outside plots 7 to 12. I have therefore attached a condition requiring a scheme to be
submitted that shows how these spaces will be constructed using a non-dig construction method.
In order to ensure that the visual amenity of the area is not eroded by the proposed development I
have attached a condition that requires a landscaping scheme that provides for significant tree
planting being submitted and approved.
With regards to the impact that the remaining trees would have upon future occupants of the
proposed dwellings I am satisfied that the proposed development complies with Policy TD3 of the
Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on trees as it would not contain any habitable room
windows within 3.6m of any point of the crowns of the trees that would remain on site.
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 £25,920 contribution towards
the provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity is required.
Other Issues –
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
With regards to concerns over noise and disruption during the construction phase a condition has
been attached that requires a considerate contractors management plan to be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. This
should ensure that residents do not experience significant levels of noise and disturbance during the
construction phase.
Devaluation of property is not a material planning consideration, nor is loss of view.
Concerns have been expressed over drainage and the potential for flooding. In order to reduce the
risk of flooding, in accordance with Policy EN19 of the adopted UDP, I have attached a condition
that requires a scheme for foul and surface water drainage to be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. I have also
attached a condition that requires finished floor levels to be 300mm above the adjacent road level.
A number of mature trees currently occupy the application site. It is possible that these trees could
be used by bats as locations to hibernate or roost. In order to ensure the protection of a protected
species in accordance with Policy EN10 I have therefore attached a condition that requires a bat
survey to be carried out and submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes
is acceptable. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples and details of the
materials for the walls and roof of the development shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved
materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a preliminary risk
assessment on the potential for on site contamination has been undertaken and agreed by the
Local Planning Authority. If the preliminary risk assessment identifies potential contamination
a detailed intrusive site investigation then prior to the commencement of 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 contamination
and ground gases on the site and its implications on the risk to human health and controlled
water receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA. The
investigation shall also address the health and safety of the site workers, also nearby persons,
building structures and services, landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the
environmental pollution in ground water. The sampling and analytical strategy shall be
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the survey, and recommendations
and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the
developer prior to occupation of the site. A site completion report including details of post
remediation ground conditions for the site shall be completed and submitted to the Local
Planning Authority prior to occupation of the site.
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 12months 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 the initial implementation of the planting scheme shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
5. 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.
6. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority the finished floor levels of
the buildings hereby approved shall be a minimum of 300mm above the adjacent road level.
7. Prior to the commencement of development a bat survey shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The survey should provide details on whether the
trees on site are used as hibernation sites, roosts or breeding sites by bats. Should the trees be
used by bats, or have the potential to be used by bats, details should be provided on how
alternative potential roosting places will be provided.
8. Prior to the first occupation of plots 7 to 12 hereby permitted the 12 car parking spaces shown
in the approved plan (311/01 Drawing 03 Revision B) shall be constructed and marked out
within the curtilage of the site. The spaces shall be made available for future occupants of the
development hereby approved at all times whilst the premises are in use.
9. Standard Condition C03X Fencing of Trees/no work within spread
10. Prior to the commencement of development an Arboricultural Method Statement that details
how the 12 proposed car parking spaces opposite plots 7 to 12 shall be constructed without
damaging the trees shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
11. 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 City of Salford Adopted UDP and the Salford
Greenspace Strategy 2006 will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
recreation space purposes.
12. Prior to the commencement of development, full details of the proposed foul and surface water
drainage for the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the
approved scheme.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
3. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
5. In order to reduce pollution in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
6. In order to reduce flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the adopted UDP.
7. In order to ensure the protection of bats in accordance with Policy EN10 of the City of Salford
UDP.
8. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
9. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
10. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
11. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policy H8 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP.
12. In order to reduce flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the adopted UDP.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. In order to satisfy condition 10 a non-dig method of construction should be utilised.
APPLICATION No:
06/53861/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Noam Handller
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
LOCATION:
15 Okeover Road Salford M7 4JX
PROPOSAL:
Conversion of hipped roof to gable and construction of dormer
extension in rear roofspace
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a semi detached property on a short cul-de sac, Okeover Road in Salford
7.
To part of the north and to the west of the property is Clowes Park, to the south and west are
residential properties.
The application seeks to convert the roof type of the property from hipped to gable and construct a
dormer extension in the roofspace at the rear. The proposed dormer extension would provide a
bedroom, bathroom, dressing room, wc and nursery. The proposed extension would be set in 0.6m
from the ridge line and 0.2m from the eaves and would have a flat roof. The proposed extension
would project 5.2m be 2.8m in height and 6.4m in width. The proposed change in roof type would
be at the same height as the existing ridge line.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was approved for the erection of a single storey rear extension and
construction of a dormer extension in the roof space at the rear of the dwelling together with the
conversion of the hip to a gable on 19th December 2002.(ref:02/45024/HH)
The single storey rear extension has been built.
The previously approved dormer extension would be set in 1.1m from the ridge line and 1m from
the eaves and would have a pitched roof. It would project 1.7m be 1.4m in width and 2m in height.
The change in roof type from hipped to gable was sited 0.5m below the ridge line of the existing
roof.
CONSULTATIONS
None
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Flat 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 31 Old Hall Road
33 Old Hall Road
Flat 2, 7, Lakeside Court
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
11A, 12 Okeover Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 1 letters from 11A Okeover Road stating they have no objections to the proposal.
I have had a request from Cllr Peter Connor that this application be reported to panel. Cllr Connor is
in support of the application and wishes the applicants personal circumstances to be taken into
consideration.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES8 – Alterations and Extensions
DES1 - Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the design of the proposed change
of roof type and dormer extension are acceptable; whether there would be any unacceptable impact
on neighbours and residents and whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the
UDP and the House Extensions SPD.
Policy DES1 of the Adopted UDP requires developments to respond to their physical context and to
respect the character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply
with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing
buildings the character of streets, impact on views, scale and the quality and appropriateness of
proposed materials.
Policy DES8 of the Adopted UDP states that permission to extend, or alter an existing building will
only be permitted if it respects the general scale, character and proportions of the existing building
and compliments the surrounding area.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) House Extensions was adopted on the
19th July 2006. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards
maintained when determining householder applications.
Policy HE10 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions states that
planning permission will not be normally be granted for the erection of dormers and alterations to
the roof unless their impact on the street scene can be significantly reduced through appropriate
design and sitting. The proposed dormer would be set in 0.6m from the ridge line and 0.2m from the
eaves and would have a flat roof. Although the proposed dormer extension would be situated at the
rear of the property it would be visible from Clowes Park and the public footpath that runs through
it. I consider the dormer excessive in scale and of limited architectural merit. The proposal
therefore does not comply with policy HE10.
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
The previously approved dormer extension would be set in 1.1m from the ridge line and 1m from
the eaves and would have a pitched roof. It would project 1.7m be 1.4m in width and 2m in height.
The change in roof type from hipped to gable was sited 0.5m below the ridge line of the existing
roof. This application proposes a much larger dormer extension it would be set in 0.6m from the
ridge line and 0.2m from the eaves and would have a flat roof. The proposed extension would
project 5.2m be 2.8m in height and 6.4m in width. The proposed dormer extension would be an
additional 5m in width and 0.8m height and would project a further 3.5m. The proposed change in
roof type would be at the same height as the existing ridge line. Previously the gable roof would
have been sited 0.5m below the ridge line.
The change in roof type from hipped to gable would be out of character with the surrounding
properties. The properties on Okeover Road are semi detached and have hipped roofs, with pitched
roofs over first floor bay windows.
CONCLUSION
The proposed dormer extension would by virtue of its size, siting and design result in an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the street scene and the character of the area. It would be
contrary to policy HE10 of the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions
and policy DES8 of the Adopted UDP.
The proposed change in roof type would result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the street
scene and the character of the area this would be contrary to Policy DES8 of the Adopted UDP.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
1. The proposed roof alteration and rear dormer extension would have an unacceptable adverse
effect on the character of the dwelling, by reason of its design, size and appearance. As such it
would result in a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area contrary to the Council's
Supplementary Planning Document for house extensions and Policies DES1 and DES8 of the
Adopted UDP.
APPLICATION No:
06/53979/HH
APPLICANT:
Y Steinberg
LOCATION:
36 Waterpark Road Salford M7 4ET
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing rear balcony and erection of a single
storey rear extension
WARD:
Kersal
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached dwelling on Waterpark Road in Salford 7
The proposal is for the demolition of the existing balcony at first floor level and the erection of a
single storey rear extension. The proposal would accommodate extra living space. The single
storey rear extension would have two sets of patio doors on the rear elevation. It would contain no
windows in either side elevation and would have glass roof lights to half of the extension. The
proposed extension would measure 5m in length, 8.8m in width and 4m in height.
The adjacent detached properties 34 and 38 Waterpark Road have single storey rear extensions.
There is a large beech tree in the rear garden of the application property. A tree survey was
requested and was submitted, to assess what affect the proposal would have on the tree.
SITE HISTORY
There have been no previous planning applications relating to this site.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
34, 38 Waterpark Road
33, 35, 37 Stanley Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter in response to the planning application publicity requesting additional
information, to which I have responded. I have received a request from Cllr Wilson that this
application be reported to the Panel. His reason is as follows loss of light and amenity to residents
of 38 Waterpark Road.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:DES1- Respecting Context
DES7- Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8- Alterations and Extensions
GUIDANCE
Supplementary Planning Document:
House Extension
Trees and Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the proposal would seriously
injure the amenity of existing residential properties and have an adverse affect on the beech tree in
the rear garden.
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 the character of
streets, impact on views, scale and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES7 of the Adopted UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would
have an adverse impact upon the occupiers or users of other developments in the vicinity or an
unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.
Policy DES8 of the Adopted UDP states that permission to extend, or alter an existing building will
only be permitted if it respects the general scale, character and proportions of the existing building
and compliments the surrounding area.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) House Extensions was adopted on the
19th July 2006. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards
maintained when determining householder applications.
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Trees and Development was adopted on
the 19th July 2006. It provides detailed guidance on Trees and Development for the City.
Policies contained within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on House
Extensions relate to semi-detached or terraced properties, the same principles have been applied in
determining this application
Policy HE5 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions states that
planning permission will not normally be granted for single storey rear extensions that project
beyond a 45 degree line drawn from either the mid-point of any principal window of a ground floor
habitable room in adjoining or adjacent dwellings or a point 3m along the common boundary from
the rear elevation of the adjoining or adjacent dwellings. The single storey rear extension complies
with policy HE5; it would not extend beyond a 45 degree splay drawn from a point 3m along the
boundary with 34 and 38 Wapterpark Road. I consider that the proposal would not result in an
unacceptable loss of light or be overbearing for neighbouring residents.
Policy HE1 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions states that
planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions that do not maintain a minimum
distance of 21m between facing principal windows of habitable rooms and a minimum distance of
10.5m between the principal windows of any habitable room of the proposed extension and the
common boundary with the facing property. In the case of ground floor windows it maybe possible
to reduce this distance where adequate privacy screening is provided. The proposal would
introduce habitable room windows (patio doors) into the rear elevation 35.5m away from the
common boundary at the rear. I consider that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss
of privacy to neighbouring residents.
The applicant submitted an Arboricultural Report, dated the 7th January 2007, which highlights a
mature Beech tree to the east of to the proposed extension as a constraint. The tree has a typical
broadly domed crown, which stems from a complex fork at 3m height. The tree is located in a
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
raised flowerbed, with a grass lawn extending south east from the base of the tree. At present a patio
area covers the root system on the western side of the tree, but this is proposed to be the area
covered by the extension.
The report highlights the need to use special construction techniques within the Root Protection
area of the tree (Section 3.5). These guidelines should be followed to avoid sever root damage,
which could in turn destabilize the tree and lead to catastrophic tree failure. The applicant is keen to
retain the tree and incorporate it with the development, but it is not worthy of protection from a
TPO due to its seclusion in the rear garden, being only visible by the public from the front of the
house, when looking south east, down the access path between the two properties.
CONCLUSION
The proposal accords with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on House Extensions
and policies DES7 and DES8 of the Adopted UDP. I consider the design of the proposed extension
to be acceptable and I am also satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable
adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of overlooking or loss of
privacy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The construction of the single storey rear extension shall be undertaken in accordance with
Arboricultural Method Statement dated 09.01.2007 submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
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
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
APPLICATION No:
07/54027/OUT
APPLICANT:
Mr P And Mrs A Ellis
LOCATION:
100 Rocky Lane Eccles M30 9LY
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application to include layout, scale and means
of access for the erection of four mews type dwellings
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a 0.11 hecatre plot of land on Rocky Lane in Monton. A large, detached
dormer bungalow currently occupies the site. There are currently two vehicular accesses to the site
– one off Rocky lane and other to the rear of the site, via an unadopted road located at the end of
Egerton Road. A pedestrian footpath occupies the land to immediately to the north of the site,
beyond this, and to all other sides residential properties can be found.
It is proposed to demolished the existing dwelling and erect a terrace of four, 3 bedroomed mews
houses, fronting onto Rocky Lane. Six car parking spaces, accessed via the private drive at the end
of Egerton Road, would be provided at the rear of the site. The applicant is seeking permission for
the site layout, the scale of the proposed development and the means of access to the site. The
external appearance of the dwellings and the landscaping details have been reserved at this stage.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
98, 98A, 104 and 106 (even) Rocky Lane
125, 125A and 127 Rocky Lane
21, 23 and 30 Egerton Road
19 to 23 (odd) Hardy Grove
CONSULTATIONS –
Director of Environmental Services – no objections subject to conditions
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 10 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised –
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
The access to the site is via a private road, which is already in a poor condition. The
additional traffic flow that the proposed development will result in, together with the
construction traffic will worsen the roads condition. The construction traffic will also have
the potential to ruin the front gardens of the properties on Egerton Road.
The nature of the access to the site is such that visibility is restricted and therefore the
proposed development has the potential to create highway safety problems, particularly
given the increased vehicular traffic flow to site.
Loss of trees
Noise and disruption during the construction phase generally and on the health of the
terminally ill mother of the owner of 98A Monton Road
Loss of light
The proposed dwellings would form an overbearing structure when viewed from 98A
Monton Road
Devaluation of property
The proposal will not enhance the area
The proposal represents an over-development of the site
I have also been contacted by Cllr Jane Murphy and she has requested that this application be
considered by Panel in order that members can fully consider the concerns of the neighbouring
residents.
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
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Design and Crime
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
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity;
whether the proposed level of parking is acceptable; whether the impact upon trees 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. This is
re-iterated in Draft Policy DP1.
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 states that sites for development will be brought forward in a sequential order. The
sequential order is defined below:
1
The re use and conversion of existing buildings
2
(i)
Previously-developed land in locations that:
are, or as part of any development would be made to be, well-served by a choice of
means of transport; and
are well related to housing, employment, services and infrastructure
3
Previously-developed land in other locations, provided that adequate levels of accessibility
and infrastructure provision could be provided
4
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 development,
followed by previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
The Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing states that in this area, West Salford, the majority of
units within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments.
A dormer bungalow 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 Policy H1 of the adopted UDP and the Council’s Planning Guidance on Housing
and the mix of units proposed the proposed development would provides four 3 bedroomed mews
houses. The proposed development is therefore in accordance with Policy H1 and the Council’s
Planning Guidance on Housing, as it would make a positive contribution towards the mix of
dwellings in the locality.
Scale and Massing –
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard
will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
The proposed mews houses would measure 4.8m to the eaves and 8m to the ridge. The detached
bungalow at 98A Monton Road measures 2.4m at the eaves and 4m at the ridge. The bungalow is
however located in an elevated position, set 1.7m above road level. The proposed mews properties
would therefore only appear 2.3m higher than the bungalow. The property at 104 Monton Road a
two-storey dwelling that measures 6.2m to the eaves and 9.7m to the ridge. With the exception of
the bungalows at 98 and 98A, the majority of properties located on Rocky Lane are two storey
dwellings of a height comparable to the property at 104 Monton Road. I am therefore of the opinion
that the scale and massing of the proposed apartment block is acceptable in this location.
I am also satisfied that despite extending across the width of the site the proposed development would not be
at odds with the character of the area as the plot sizes and layout of the dwellings within each plot varies
considerably in the vicinity of the site.
Amenity Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of
amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or
users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The property at 98A Monton Road does not have any habitable room windows in the gable end that
face onto the application site. The proposed properties would be located within closer proximity to
the property at 98A Monton Road than the bungalow that currently occupies the site. The proposed
terrace would however be set in 1.6m form the common boundary and it would not project beyond
the main front or rear elevation of 98A Monton Road. Consequently the proposed development
would not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of this property
currently enjoy.
At their closest the proposed mews properties would be located in excess of 30m from the property
opposite the application site, 125A Rocky Lane. The proposed development would not therefore
have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the occupants of the property at 125a Rocky
Lane can reasonably expect to enjoy.
The property at 104 Monton Road has a habitable room window contained within the elevation that
fronts the application site. There would be approximately 20.6m between the proposed mews
houses and this window. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed dwellings can be introduced
without reducing the level of light received in this room. The property at 104 Monton Road also has
its garden area fronting onto the application site. The garden area contains a number of mature
trees, which result in the garden area being well shaded. Taking into consideration these trees, the
location of the existing bungalow 1m from the common boundary with 104 Monton Road and the
fact that the eaves height of the existing bungalow and proposed dwellings is comparable means
that I am satisfied that the proposed development can be introduced without having an adverse
impact upon the amenity the occupants of 104 Monton Road can reasonably expect to enjoy in their
garden area.
The proposed dwellings would run alongside the driveway of 23 Egerton Road. The proposed
dwellings would be off set from the dwelling at 23 Egerton Road, set 10.2m beyond the corner of
the building, 3.8m further away than the existing bungalow. I am therefore satisfied that the
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
proposed dwellings can be introduced without having an adverse impact upon the residential
amenity the occupants of 23 Egerton Road currently enjoy.
Policy DES7 also requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory level
of amenity.
Each of the proposed dwellings would be provided with a reasonable amount of useable amenity
space in the form of a rear garden.
Access
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards.
6 parking spaces would be provided in a secure communal parking area located to the rear of the
proposed dwellings. The proposed car parking would be laid out in such a way that I do not have
any highway safety concerns with this element of the proposal. With regards to the concerns raised
over the rear access and potential conflicts with users of the public footpath it should be noted that
this is an existing access to the site. The proposed development would not intensify the use of the
access to the extent that concerns would be raised over the safety of pedestrians and other users of
the unadopted road serving the access.
Other Issues –
There are 18 trees on site, none of which are protected by a tree preservation order. It is proposed to
fell 8 of these trees, six to accommodate the proposed development and two in the interests of good
arboricultural management. The Council’s consultant arborist has inspected the trees and considers
they are not worthy of protection as they are of low and moderate value. As a result the removal of
the 8 trees would not have an adverse effect on the visual amenity value of the area. With regards to
the amenity of future residents the proposed development complies with Policy TD3 of the
Council’s SPD on trees which requires a minimum of 3.6m between any part of a tree and any
habitable room windows. I do not therefore have any objections to the development on tree
grounds.
With regards to concerns over noise and disruption during the construction phase a condition has
been attached that requires a site operating plan to be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. This should ensure that residents
do not experience significant levels of noise and disturbance during the construction phase.
Devaluation of property is not a material planning consideration.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes
is acceptable. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Adopted UDP and there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
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
b) landscaping
3. Prior to the commencement of 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 contamination and ground gases on the site and its
implications on the risk to human health and controlled water receptors as defined under the
Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA. The investigation shall also address the health
and safety of the site workers, also nearby persons, building structures and services,
landscaping schemes, final users on the site and the environmental pollution in ground water.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority prior
to the start of the survey, and recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site. A site
completion report including details of post remediation ground conditions for the site shall be
completed and submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the site.
4. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the acoustic double glazing of the
windows of all habitable rooms fronting Rocky Lane and the mechanical ventilation of all
habitable rooms fronting Rocky Lane shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and thereafter retained
in accordance with the approved details.
5. Unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority the finished floor levels of
the buildings hereby approved shall be a minimum of 300mm above the adjacent road level.
6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details of the tree
survey conducted by Cheshire Woodlands Arboricultural Consultancy reference CW/5347-AA
submitted on the 29th of January 2007.
7. Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted the 6 car parking spaces shown
in the approved plan (8424 Drawing 04 Amendment A) shall be constructed and marked out
within the curtilage of the site. The spaces shall be made available for future occupants of the
development hereby approved at all times whilst the dwellings are in use.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R024B Amenity of future residents
5. In order to reduce flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the adopted UDP.
6. Standard Reason R004B Amenity - area
7. Standard Reason R026B Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The site lies within the 2005 declared air quality management area for NO2
2. This permission relates to drawings 8424 Drawing 05 and 8424 Drawing 04 Amendment A.
APPLICATION No:
07/54049/HH
APPLICANT:
B Dzieciolkiewicz
LOCATION:
34 Ukraine Road Salford M7 3TE
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part single, part first floor rear extension
(re-submission of planning application 06/53606/HH)
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a terraced property on Ukraine Road in Salford 7
This application seeks to erect a part first floor/part single storey extension at the rear of the
property. The proposed first floor extension is to provide a bathroom. The first floor extension
would project 1.990m in length and 2.6m in width. The proposed single storey extension is to
enlarge the kitchen. The proposed single storey extension would project 2.8m in length and 2.6m in
width.
The proposed extension would be situated along the common boundary with 36 Ukraine Road. The
habitable room windows on the rear elevations of the properties are set forward 0.6m. The
extension would be situated 1.4m from the boundary with 32 Ukraine Road. On the site there are
existing boundary walls that measure 1.2m in height and are the full length of the rear yards
SITE HISTORY
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
There has been one previous application on the site 06/53606/HH, for the erection of part fist floor
part single storey rear extension. This application was reported to panel on 16.11.2006. The
application was refused at panel on the grounds that., the proposed extension would, by vitue of
size and siting have an unacceptable impact on the residents of No.32 Ukraine Road by reason of
it’s overbearing nature contrary to the City Of Salford Unaitary Development Plan Policy DE S7
Policy HE5 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document for House Extensions
PUBLICITY
The following addresses have been notified
31 Valencia Road
33 Valencia Road
35 Valencia Road
32 Ukraine Road
36 Ukraine Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have had a request from Cllr Peter Connor and Cllr George Wilson that this application be
reported to panel. Cllrs Connor and Wilson are objecting to the application on the basis that it is
over bearing and out of character with the area. They have requested a site visit by panel.
I have received six letters of objection in relation to this application. The following issues have
been raised
Loss of light
Loss of privacy
Overlooking
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific Policies: None
Other Policies: DES 7
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this planning application are: whether the design of the
proposed extension is acceptable; whether there would be an unacceptable impact on neighbours
and residents and whether the development accords with the relevant policies of the UDP and the
Councils SPD on House Extensions.
Policy DES7 of the Adopted UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would
have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments
The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) House Extensions was Adopted in July
2006. It provides additional guidance on the factors to be considered and standards maintained
when determining house holder planning applications.
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 15 February 2007
The proposed extension is to be situated at the rear of the property along the common boundary
with 36 Ukraine Road and 1.4m away from the boundary with 32 Ukraine Road. There is a
habitable room window on the ground floor elevation of 32 Ukraine Road, close to the common
boundary. This window is set forward 0.6m from the rear elevation. Policy HE7 requires that in the
case of first floor extensions to the rear when there is an absence of an extension to the adjoining
dwelling that the proposed extension must project equal to or less than the distance to the nearest
common boundary. The proposed first floor would project 1.990m and the distance to the nearest
common boundary is 1.4m, however because the window is set forward 0.6m the first floor
extension would project 1.4m from this window. This is in accordance with Policy HE7of the SPD.
The existing kitchen at 34 Ukraine Road projects 1.9m from the rear elevation of 32 Ukraine Road.
The proposed single storey extension would project 3m. The overall projection from the rear
elevation of 32 Ukraine Road would be 4.9m. Policy HE5 requires that an extension should not
project beyond a 45 degree line drawn from either the midpoint of principal window of a ground
floor habitable room in an adjoining dwelling or from a point 3m along the common boundary from
the rear elevation of an adjoining dwelling, whichever allows the longest extension. The proposal
would not exceed the 45 degree splay from a point 3m along the boundary. The proposal is
therefore in accordance with Policy HE 5 of the SPD.
CONCLUSION
The proposed extension accords with Policies HE5 and HE7 of the House Extensions SPD and
Policy DES7 of the Adopted UDP. I therefore recommend the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Standard Condition D01C Materials to match
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007B Development-existing building
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
15th February 2007
06/54004/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Childrens Services Directorate
LOCATION:
St Pauls C Of E School Heathside Grove Worsley M28 3NZ
PROPOSAL:
Siting of a portable building for use as a childrens centre to
include construction of car park and erection of fencing.
WARD:
Walkden North
At a meeting of the Panel held on 1st February 2007 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Further to the completion of the original report a further 2 letters of objection have been
received, the issues raised can be summarised as follows:
Lack of security.
Loss of privacy.
Noise, from gates constantly opening and closing, the soft play area and opening hours.
The plans do not indicate the height of the building, should a disabled ramp need to be
installed, this will heighten the level of the windows increasing the level of invasion of
privacy.
Inhibits the use of garden area.
Loss of view.
Loss of light.
The flat roof will invite intruders in.
The centre is likely to be victim to arson attack.
Use of unsightly coloured panels and security fence, not in keeping with the school or
houses.
The security fence around the soft play area is too high.
The building is too close to residential properties.
The issues raised have been considered and the recommendation remains the same.
A consultation response has been received from the Strategic Director of Environmental
Services recommending a condition restricting the hours of use of the external soft play area
between 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday and a further condition restricting the rating level
from all fixed plant and machinery.
The school site is not subject to restricted hours of use, the proposed Children’s Centre would
be situated within the curtilage of the St Pauls Church of England school and as such it would
not be considered reasonable to restrict the hours of use of the soft play area.
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th February 2007
In light of the comments received from the Strategic Director of Environmental Services it is
recommended that a condition restricting the rating level of the fixed plant and machinery be
attached to any planning consent.
Consultation letters have been sent to neighbours advising of amended plans, the publicity
period has not expired until 3rd February. It is recommended that if the Panel are minded to
approve this application that decision is delegated to the Chair plus one other member of the
Panel unless objections are received from local residents. If objections are received the
application will be brought back to the next meeting of the Panel on 15th February 2007 to allow
the consideration of any representations received during the publicity period.
BACKGROUND
The proposed development is funded by Sure Start. Sure Start is a Government programme
which aims to achieve better outcomes for children, parents and communities by: increasing the
availability of childcare for all children; improving health and emotional development for
young children; supporting parents as parents and in their aspirations towards employment.
Children’s Centres are a significant delivery arm in achieving the five outcomes for children
and young people as set out in the Government’s paper `Every Child Matters'. The Government
would like to see a Children’s Centre in every community and nationally, under the Sure Start
Programme, are hoping to have 2500 Children’s Centres by 2008.
Sure Start national guidance states that the ideal Centre should be on or close to a Primary
School. The selection of a school site also promotes and supports 'extended school' provision
and allows further development of the Government’s ideas for accessible community school
sites.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land currently within the grounds of St Pauls Church of England
school. The site is bounded by residential properties.
The applicant seeks consent for the siting of a portable building for use as a children’s centre.
The building would be rectangular in shape and measure 9.2 metres wide, 27.2 metres deep and
2.8 metres high with a flat roof. The Children’s Centre would incorporate a crčche,
training/meeting room, health room, interview room, plant room, offices, toilets and store
rooms.
It is proposed that the site be bounded by a 2.4 metre weld mesh fence to the south and west and
2.55 metre railings and vehicular and pedestrian gates to the eastern boundary.
The proposal would include five car parking spaces and one disabled space. The centre would
be open between the hours of 08:00 am and 18:00 Monday to Friday and five members of staff
would be employed on the site.
SITE HISTORY
04/48649/DEEM3 – Erection of 2.4 metre high fencing and gates – Permitted.
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th February 2007
03/45812/DEEM3 – Replace existing flat roof with new pitched roof – Permitted.
00/41132/DEEM3 – Installation of roller shutters – Permitted.
97/36878/DEEM3 – Installation of roller shutters to various windows – Permitted.
CONSULTATIONS
Strategic Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Brindley Arms, Whittle Street
27 – 59 (odds) Wilbraham Road
53A, 57A Wilbraham Road
99 – 133 (odds) Whittle Street
107A, 109A, 111A, 113A, 123A, 125A, 127A, 129A, 131A, 133A Whittle Street
10, 10A, 12, 12A, 25, 25A, 27, 27A Leaside Grove
1 – 8 Heathside Grove
29 – 59 (odds) Egerton Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 4 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity, 2 of
which are from the same property. The following issues have been raised:Vandalism and possible criminal intent.
Too close to private and Council property, elderly people live in these properties.
Noise from increased traffic and new play area.
Loss of light.
Removal of another piece of Greenland.
Property devaluation (not a material planning consideration).
Overlooking.
Increased traffic flow on Whittle Street.
Hours of work too long to allow privacy, open to use weekends.
Loss of view, no trees to rear of 111 Whittle Street.
The field is used for school sports day.
Running track only used about once a year.
The area is not deprived.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1:
Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
DES1: Respecting Context
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th February 2007
DES7: Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10: Design and Crime
EHC1: Provision and Improvement of Schools and Colleges.
A10: Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
EN12: Important Landscape Features
ST11: Location of New Development.
DRAFT SUBMITTED REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP1:
Regional Development Principles.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The key issues to be considered in the determination of this application are; whether the
principle of development is acceptable, whether the design and appearance is acceptable,
whether the impact on trees is acceptable, whether the proposal would be detrimental to the
amenities of neighbouring occupiers; whether the proposal satisfactorily addresses issues of
parking and access and any other issues. I shall deal with each of these in turn.
Principle of development
Policy EHC1 considers that planning permission will be granted for the improvement or
replacement of schools on existing sites provided that the development would not have an
unacceptable impact on amenity, be accessible to the community it serves, incorporate
adequate provision for disabled access, not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion
or have an adverse impact on highway safety and make provision, where possible for
community use.
Policy DP1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy seeks to ensure that existing buildings and
brownfield land is developed before Greenfield land. Policy ST11 of the adopted UDP
re-iterates this policy. Previously developed land is defined within Annex B of PPS3 as ‘that
which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed
land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.’ The proposal would be situated within
the curtilage of an existing school. The application site would therefore be considered to be
brownfield land, thus complying with criteria 1b of Policy ST11 and the guidance contained
within PPS3, which seeks to prioritise the development of such land over land that has not been
previously developed (Greenfield land).
The proposed development represents the improvement of the existing school facilities in
accordance with Policy EHC1 of the adopted UDP. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the
principle of development is acceptable.
Design and appearance
Policy DES1 considers that development will be required to respond to its physical context,
respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated, and contribute towards
local identify and distinctiveness.
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th February 2007
Policy DES10 considers that development will not be permitted unless it is designed to
discourage crime, anti-social behaviour and the fear of crime, and support personal and
property security.
The site would be surrounded by a 2.4 metre high weld mesh fence to the south and west
boundaries and 2.55 metre railings to the eastern boundary. The site would have both a
vehicular and pedestrian access independent to the main school site, this would help maintain
security to the school when the school is closed. The proposal therefore accords with Policy
DES10.
The proposed weld mesh fencing is an appropriate form of fencing in this location and the
proposed railings would match the school’s existing perimeter fencing. A condition would be
attached to any planning consent ensuring that the colour be agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
The building would be roughly rectangular in shape measuring 9.2 metres wide, 27.2 metres
deep and 2.8 metres high with a flat roof. Amended plans have been received showing
amended materials. The building would be constructed of white aluminium cladding, grey
marble chip panel and blue fascia. The building represents a community use and is low rise, the
proposed development would not therefore have an adverse impact upon the visual amenity of
the area and consequently the proposal is in accordance with Policy DES1 of the UDP.
A condition would be attached to any planning consent requiring sample materials to be
submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development. I am satisfied that this
will ensure that the materials are of a sufficiently high quality.
Impact on trees
Policy EN12 relates to important landscape features and considers that where development
would have a detrimental impact on, or result in the loss of, any important landscape feature
”
“
will not be permitted. Supplementary Planning Document Trees and Development states
that in the case of replacement tree planting the Council will require, wherever practicable, the
replacement on the basis of at least two new trees for each tree lost.
The proposed development would result in the felling of two Prunus (Cherry) trees on the
eastern boundary of the site to allow for the creation of a new vehicular access. These trees are
situated on Council owned land and subsequently are not subject to Tree Preservation Orders.
A tree survey has been submitted by the applicant, the trees are in good and fair condition and
offer good amenity value being situated on the eastern boundary of the site and visible from the
public realm. I am satisfied that ample space remains within the school site for replacement
planting which can afford an equivalent amenity value to those trees to be felled. Furthermore,
trees of a similar amenity value will remain on either side of the access, (three to the north of the
proposed access and a group of seven to the south) and I do not consider that the loss of these
trees will have an adverse effect on visual amenity. Replacement planting would be best
situated to the south west of the proposed Children’s Centre. Here trees would be both visible
from Heathside Grove and would partially screen the building from the main school site.
The felling of these trees offers the least intrusive option for constructing a Children’s Centre at
St Pauls Church of England School. Should the Children’s Centre be proposed at any other
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th February 2007
location accessed from Heathside Grove it would also result in the felling of trees and would
additionally be impractical because the school track occupies the eastern side of the school site.
It is important that the Children’s Centre incorporates its own access separate to that of the
school in order to maintain security to the school after hours.
No objection is raised to the felling of these trees and it is recommended that a condition be
attached to any planning consent requiring the provision of four standard replacement trees, the
exact species and location of the trees to be submitted prior to commencement of development.
Amenity
Policy DES7 of the UDP considers that all new development will be required to provide
potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space, sunlight, daylight,
privacy, aspect and layout. Development will not be permitted where it would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
The proposal includes windows in the north elevation facing properties within Whittle Street.
At its closest point the proposal would sit 5.6 metres from the rear boundaries of properties
within Whittle Street and at its furthest 12 metres. The length of rear gardens of properties
within Whittle Street is approximately 15 metres. This coupled with the limited 2.8 metre
height of the proposal ensures that the application would not result in an unacceptably
detrimental impact on the amenity of residents due to overlooking or loss of privacy.
The proposed Children’s Centre and new vehicular access would be situated adjacent to No.8
Heathside Grove. This property does not have any windows in the west side elevation and the
proposal would not therefore result in an unacceptably detrimental impact on the amenity of
residents due to overlooking or loss of privacy. The Children’s Centre would function in a
similar way to the existing school just with extended opening hours (08:00 am until 18:00 pm)
and the proposed access would be situated adjacent to the existing vehicular access for the main
school site. Therefore, vehicular traffic along Heathside Grove would not intensify as a result
of the new access to such an extent as to have a detrimental impact on the residents of Heathside
Grove in terms of noise and disturbance. The application therefore accords with Policy DES7.
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
The children’s centre would provide family support and outreach, integrated care and education
and children and family services to the local community. The proposed children’s centre would
therefore function in a similar way to the existing school just with extended opening hours
(08:00 am until 18:00 pm).
In light of the nature of the proposed use, the Council’s maximum car parking standards to
encourage the use of more sustainable modes of transport, and the sites proximity within
reasonable walking distance of both Manchester Road and Bolton Road which is a major public
transport route, I consider the level of proposed car parking to be acceptable and in accordance
with Policy A10. I therefore have no objections to the application on highway grounds.
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th February 2007
CONCLUSION
The scheme would have significant benefits for the wider community and would not have an
unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. Adequate
replacement trees would be provided to compensate for the felling of trees on site. The
application accords with the relevant policies of the UDP. I therefore recommend that the
application be approved.
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, details of the colour of
the weld mesh fencing and railings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The weld mesh fencing shall be painted with the approved
colour within 3 months of its erection and maintained thereafter.
3. Prior to the first use of the children's centre hereby approved, the 6 car parking spaces
shown on the approved plan (E11262 02 A) shall be constructed and laid out to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and shall be made available at all times the
children's centre is in use.
4. 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.
5. During the first available planting season following the felling of the 2 trees hereby granted
consent, they shall be replaced by 4 standard trees in accordance with British Standard
3936:Part 1:1992 (Specification for Nursery Stock Part 1: Trees and Shrubs) and which
shall have a clear stem height from the ground of 1.8m, a minimum overall height from the
ground of 2.75m, a minimum circumference of stem at 1m from the ground of 8 cm. The
species and location of the two replacement trees shall be agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority prior to the felling of the trees.
6. No external lighting shall be installed unless and until a scheme has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details.
7. The rating level from all fixed plant and machinery associated with the development, when
operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the background noise level at any time when
measured at the nearest noise sensitive premises.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th February 2007
Act 1990.
2. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES 1 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policy A 8 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 neighbouring residents in accordance with policy
DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
7. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residents in accordance with policy
DES 7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
84
15th February 2007