PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
APPLICATION No:
04/47720/FUL
APPLICANT:
Vale And Valley Properties Limited
LOCATION:
Land At Middlewood Street/ Oldfield Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Renewal of outline planning permission (00/41724/OUT) for the
erection of 152 apartments and construction of new vehicular
access
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application seeks to renew an application for residential development which was approved in
2001. That application was in outline with approval granted for siting and means of access. All
other matters were reserved for determination at a later stage.
The application site is located at the junction of Middlewood Street and Oldfield Road. To the
south of the site is the railway line. The site is currently vacant, having previously been occupied
by industrial uses.
To the north of the application site on land bounded by Oldfield Road to the west, the railway line
to the north, East Ordsall Lane to the east and Middlewood Street to the south, is the Middlewood
Locks site. Outline planning permission was granted in September 2003 for the redevelopment of
that site for a mixture of uses, including residential, a hotel, retail and commercial purposes.
Although this site did not form part of that application, its redevelopment needs to be considered in
the context of the redevelopment of the wider area.
SITE HISTORY
In April 2004, a full planning application for the erection of one seven storey block comprising
212 apartments together with 106 car parking spaces, associated landscaping and creation of new
vehicular access was submitted (04/48304/FUL). That application is also being considered at this
Panel meeting.
In July 2001, outline planning permission was granted for the erection of 152 apartments with
associated landscaping, car parking and the construction of a new vehicular access (ref:
00/41724/OUT).
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date
Network Rail – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received to date
Environment Agency – no objections but recommends a number of informatives
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objections to the proposed development
but provided comments on the application, including that the site is within walking distance of bus
stops.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – no comments received to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 24th February 2004
A press notice was published on 19th February 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
52, 54 Oldfield Road
Salford Consortium, 4 Liverpool Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of representation in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS6 – Middlewood
EC11/6 – Sites for Office Development (Middlewood Street, Blackfriars)
Other policies: H6 – Open Space Provision within New Housing
Developments
H11 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
DEV1 – Development Criteria
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/2 – Development in Mixed Use Areas – Chapel Street West
Other policies: H8 - Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Developments
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
DES1 – Respecting Context
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the
redevelopment of this site for residential purposes is acceptable; whether the proposal would have
a detrimental impact on highway safety; whether the applicant would make an appropriate
contribution towards environmental improvements within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy
Area and towards the provision of open space in the vicinity; and whether the application accords
with the relevant provisions of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I
will deal with each in turn below.
The Principle of Residential Development
Adopted Policy CS6 states that the redevelopment and improvement of the Middlewood area for a
range of leisure, business and residential uses will be supported. Emphasis will be placed on, inter
alia, securing the redevelopment of vacant land.
Adopted Policy EC11/6 allocates the application site, and the site on the opposite side of
Middlewood Street, for office development. It states that the redevelopment of these sites for
offices will consolidate and improve the surrounding established industrial and commercial area.
Draft Policy MX1/2 highlights Chapel Street West as an area to be developed for a mixture of uses.
Appropriate uses include housing, offices, tourism, leisure, retail and community facilities. In
determining the appropriate mix of uses on individual sites, regard will be had to a number of
factors, including the positive impact of the proposal 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 existing and previous
use of the site and the prominence of the location.
Although the site is allocated for commercial purposes in the Adopted UDP, I am of the opinion
that this allocation has been superseded by recent events, namely the clearance of the area, the
recent approval of an outline application for the redevelopment of the Middlewood Locks site and
the recent approval of an outline application for the redevelopment of this site for residential
purposes. The site has been vacant for a number of years which suggests that there is no demand
for the re-use of the site for offices. I consider that Adopted Policy CS6 and Draft Policy MX1
more accurately set the framework for development in the area. The proposed development
comprises solely of residential units. However, given that the previously approved scheme did not
provide a mix of uses, and in light of the mixture of uses which would be provided within the
Middlewood Locks site, I consider the solely residential use to be acceptable. This proposal would
make efficient use of a vacant, unattractive and prominent site in the urban area and I am therefore
of the opinion that the principle of the proposal is acceptable and accords with the relevant
provisions of the Draft UDP polices outlined above.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
Highways
Draft Policy A1 states that planning applications for developments which would give rise to
significant transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport
assessment and, where appropriate, a travel plan.
A Transport Assessment was submitted with the previously approved outline application. I have
no objections to this application in this regard. I am therefore satisfied that the provisions of Draft
Policy A1 have been satisfied.
Open Space and Environmental Improvements within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy
Area
Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play within
new housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11 which sets out a sliding scale for
such provision.
Draft Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
The previously approved application was subject to a S106 agreement requiring the contribution of
£25,000 towards the regeneration of the surrounding area. It was not considered necessary at that
time to require a financial contribution towards the provision of open space in the vicinity as the
proposal comprised one and two bedroomed apartments. In addition, the view was taken that as the
proposed development would be located within a landscaped setting, including the restored
Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal, a contribution towards the provision of open space would not
be necessary. In view of the above, I do not consider it reasonable to require the applicant to make
a financial contribution towards the provision of open space in this instance.
The contribution of £25,000 was agreed in light of the significant contributions which would be
made as part of the Snoworld scheme. Although Snoworld is no longer going ahead, the
redevelopment of the Middlewood Locks is anticipated to take place over the next few years. The
approval for the Middlewood Locks scheme is subject to a S106 agreement for the contribution of
a maximum of £1.5m towards environmental improvements within the Chapel Street
Regeneration Strategy Area, as well as providing the land necessary for the restoration of the
Canal through the site. In view of this, I consider that significant contributions have already been
secured towards the regeneration of the surrounding area, both in terms of a financial contribution
and the prospect of the restoration of the Canal. I do not therefore consider it reasonable to require
the applicants to make a larger contribution than previously agreed and am satisfied that £25,000
would be a satisfactory contribution given the amount previously agreed.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
As outlined above, the applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution of £25,000 towards
environmental improvements within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes is
acceptable, and would make a positive contribution to the area and would be consistent with the
redevelopment of the wider Middlewood area. I am satisfied that the financial contribution agreed
is appropriate in light of the amount previously agreed. I am satisfied that the application accords
with the relevant provisions of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. I
therefore make the following recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
That Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below once the
legal agreement has been signed:
i.
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter
into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a contribution to
the implementation of, environmental improvements in the local
area to the value of £25,000;
ii.
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning
permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
iii.
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject
to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal
agreement,
iv.
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the
aim and objectives of policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary
Development Plan or the aim and objectives of the Chapel Street Regeneration Project.
.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
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:
-- plans and elevations showing the design of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted,
any existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk
positions, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
4. Prior to the commencement of development an assessment to determine the external noise
levels that residents in the apartments will be subject to and the steps required to mitigate
possible disturbance, including road,railway, adjoining uses and the proposed adjacent
development, shall be undertaken by the developer and submitted for the approval of the
Director of Development Services. Such measures that are approved shall be implemented
prior to the occupation of each dwelling.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the residents of the development in accordance with
policy EN 20 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
CS6 - Middlewood; EC11/6 - Sites for Office Development (Middlewood Street, Blackfriars);
H6 - Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments; H11 - Open Space Provision
within New Housing Developments; DEV1 - Development Criteria; T13 - Car Parking
2. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
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.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from the Environment Agency
APPLICATION No:
04/47899/FUL
APPLICANT:
Bellway Homes Ltd
LOCATION:
The Coppice Off Chatsworth Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing four houses and erection of 15 houses and a
four-storey block comprising 12 apartments (re-submission of
planning application 03/46497/FUL)
WARD:
Worsley
BACKGROUND
At the meeting of the Panel on 6 May the application and my amendment report were withdrawn
from consideration to allow a number of late objections, including an objection on behalf of local
residents by planning consultants to be properly assessed.
Given the complexities of this particular application the decision was taken to commission an
independent assessment of the site and the application by a firm of planning consultants. The brief
given was that their report should be an entirely independent assessment and was not to be a report
written in order to support any particular view.
This report has now been received. I have included extracts from the report in my amended report
to the Panel but for clarity and openness the entire consultant’s report is attached as an appendix.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of four existing detached properties at The Coppice a small
private cul-de-sac off Chatsworth Road, also a private road. The roughly triangular shaped site
covers an area of approximately 0.68 hectare and is bounded on three sides by Worsley Golf
Course. To the north are two detached dwellings beyond which is Chatsworth Road. The site is at
a lower level than Chatsworth Road and there is a fall of almost 8.5m from the top of the site at
Chatsworth Road to the southernmost point adjacent to the golf course.
It is proposed to demolish the four properties and build a total of 27 dwellings. The development
would comprise fifteen three storey mews houses and twelve apartments with a mixture of two,
three, four and five bedrooms. The properties would also be a mix of three and four storeys that
have one storey within the roof space. The development achieves a density of under 40 dwellings
per hectare. The applicant has provided two parking spaces per house with one parking space per
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
apartment with an additional four visitor parking spaces.
submitted with the application.
15th July 2004
A Traffic Assessment has been
The site contains a total of 55 individual trees and 11 groups of ornamental trees the majority of
which are on the boundaries of the site. The majority of these trees are protected by Tree
Preservation Order. The arboricultural statement says that the only trees to be removed to
accommodate the development are ornamental conifers, shrubberies and some younger trees that
are not visually important.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted in outline in July 2001 for the siting of a detached dwelling to the
rear of 5 The Coppice (01/42304/OUT)
Permission was refused on the grounds of impact on trees and overdevelopment for a similar
scheme that comprised 30 units in October 2003 (03/46497/FUL). An appeal has been submitted
and is to be decided at a public inquiry in October.
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objections
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections but expresses a number of
concerns and provides advice about details security matters.
Environment Agency – No objections in principle but points out that the site lies within the
catchment of Worsley Brook, which has a flooding problem in the lower reaches. Surface water
run-off must be no more than at present and a condition is required with regard to surface water.
United Utilities – No objections in principle but provides advice for the applicant.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
The following neighbour addresses have been notified of both the original application and all
amended plans:
1 to 9, 4, 6, 15 to 21, 42 to 52, 47, 69 to 79, 72 to 76, 94, 114, 116, 109, 119, 122, 129, 142
to 148 Chatsworth Road
2 to 36, 1 to 37, 1 to 3 Hollowgate and Broad Oak School Fairmount Road
103 to 107, 113 to 117 and 123 to 127 Springclough
1, 6, 9 and 12 Merlewood Drive
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
11, 25 and 12 Hanover Court
3, 4, 6, 14 and 16 Bramley Close
342 Worsley Road
Clover Cottage Mill Brow
2 and 3 The Spinney
3 Beechwood Drive
3, 4 and 6 Broadlands Road
6 Grovehurst
2 Oakdene
14 Chalfont Drive
Worsley Golf Club Stableford Avenue
This list includes all those who objected to the previous planning application.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have also now received a total of 128 objections to the application that includes a representation
from planning consultants on behalf of 61 named local residents.
In relation to the application currently under consideration the following issues have been raised:Development would be out of character
Detrimental to wildlife
Increase in traffic and loss of highway safety
The application has been endorsed by the case officer dealing with the application
Noise
Loss of value of property
Precedent
The tone of the area will be lowered
Effect on the condition of Chatsworth Road, a private highway
Loss of trees
Congestion and noise during construction
Overdevelopment
Contrary to PPG3
Loss of architectural heritage
Not enough parking
Too much car parking
Too much traffic on a road with no pavements
Contrary to the development plan
Overbearing to neighbouring properties
No affordable housing
Overlooking of neighbouring properties
Local school has no capacity for more children
Pollution from alarms and lights
Effect on golf course
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
Worsley is an ‘area of restraint’ in the UDP
The development would be contrary to the Human Rights of neighbours
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, H6 and H11
Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, T13 Car
Parking, DEV1 Development Criteria
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN10 Protected Trees, H8 Open Space Provision Within New Housing
Developments, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments,
DES1 Respecting Context
PLANNING APPRAISAL
My appraisal is divided into five sections
Policy context
Issued raised by objectors
The planning consultant’s objection on behalf of neighbours
The planning consultant’s report on behalf of the city Council
Conclusions
Policy Context
Policy EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the conservation of trees and woodland. In
addition the City Council has adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance with regard to trees.
Importantly this states that considerations for layout design should ensure that no building should
be located within the maximum spread of any tree and that in the case of residential buildings, a
development in which a principal window is overshadowed by a tree, or where any part of a tree is
sited within 3.6m of a window, will be resisted. The Guidance also states that private gardens
should not be planned to include an excessive proportion overshadowed by trees. Policies H6 and
H11 require adequate provision to be made for informal open space and children’s play facilities.
Policy T13 states that adequate and appropriate car parking provision should be made. Policy
DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the size and density of the proposed development, the
relationship to the road and public transport network, the likely scale and type of traffic generation,
the amount, design and layout of car parking provision, the layout and relationship of existing and
proposed buildings, the effect on neighbouring properties, the visual appearance of the
development and the impact on trees.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
The replacement plan policies are generally similar to those of the adopted plan in respect to this
development.
With regard to Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 this calls for higher densities and for the re-use of
previously developed sites. The objectives of PPG3 are not to achieve intensification of
development on every previously developed site regardless of the context but to promote an
efficient use of land on suitable sites and locations, without compromising the character and the
environment of an area. I have already concluded that I do not consider that the development in
itself would have a detrimental effect on the character of the area and now that the scheme has been
amended to take account of my concerns regarding trees I am satisfied that the development would
be in accordance with the advice contained in PPG3. In addition PPG3 states that car parking
standards that result, on average, in development with more than 1.5 off-street car parking spaces
per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the Government’s emphasis on securing sustainable residential
developments. The scheme provides, on average, less than two spaces per dwelling and in the site
context I would not raise objection to this level of provision.
Issues Raised by Objectors
I shall deal with the issues raised by the objectors in turn. The character of the area is principally
made up of the dwellings on Chatsworth Road, the nature of the carriageway itself and of the open
aspect over the golf course. There are a number of newer developments at both ends of
Chatsworth Road that depart from this character, in that they are not houses set within
comparatively large grounds set back from the road, but which do not harm the overall character of
the area. I believe that this site is similar to other sites that have been redeveloped in the vicinity
without having a detrimental effect on the character of Chatsworth Road. This site is set much
lower than Chatsworth Road and is to the rear of houses on the golf course side of the road. The
site is viewed not in the context of Chatsworth Road but as a separate area off it. The development
would not be particularly noticeable from Chatsworth Road and would not be viewed in the
context of those dwellings that do form the character of the area. The principal aspect of the
character of the area is derived from, I believe, the unmade road; the houses set back from the road
in substantial grounds and the open aspect across the golf course. This development would not
affect this character. I am mindful of the previous decision made by the Panel that the previous
scheme for 30 dwellings would have resulted in a significant detrimental effect on the locality as a
result of the density and intensity of the development. The proposed development has been
reduced by removing three dwellings from the scheme and I consider that this reduction in both the
density and the intensity of development that amounts to 10% is significant both in itself and
particularly given the context of the site that I have outlined above.
The area is developed already, albeit by just four dwellings. The applicant proposes to retain
principle trees and therefore I do not agree that there would be a significant detrimental effect on
wildlife in the area. The arboricultural report does point out that the existing buildings may
provide roosts for bats and does recommend that an assessment be made by an appropriate person
prior to demolition taking place. I consider therefore that this matter could be adequately covered
by a suitably worded condition.
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
There would be an increase in traffic as a result of this development but do not consider that this
would result in an unacceptable loss of highway safety and the previous application that was for
more dwellings was not refused on highway grounds.
With regard to the suggestion that the development has been endorsed by the case officer dealing
with the application it is of course normal practice to have pre-application discussions, in fact these
are generally encouraged in order to improve the quality of the submissions. In this case the
applicant did have pre-applications meetings with officers. These discussions are held on the basis
that they are without prejudice, the purpose being for Council officers to advise developers of the
policies and standards required. They are not part of the applicant's team and are not advocating
the development. The planning application includes a Planning Statement document, Traffic
Impact Assessment, Arboricultural Report and a Design Statement, again something to be
encouraged, which sets out the applicant’s case and justification for the development. Any
references to the views of officers in the applicant's documentation is a matter for them.
I do not consider that the development would result in any significant increase in noise that would
lead to an unacceptable loss of amenity to any neighbouring property.
Loss of value and the lowering of the tone of the area are not material planning considerations that
can be taken into account in the determination of planning applications.
With regard to precedent I would point out that no two sites are exactly the same and that every
planning application must be considered on its own merits.
Several residents have objected on the ground that occupiers of this development will use
Chatsworth Road but because the development has no frontage onto Chatsworth Road there will
be no requirement for any contribution to be made towards the upkeep of the road. The applicant
had agreed to make an annual financial contribution towards maintenance of Chatsworth Road but
without there being any formal body set up to undertake the work it is not something that the City
Council as highway authority could undertake. I do not consider that the City Council should
require Chatsworth Road to be made up to adoptable standards as I consider that the charm and
character of the area is derived principally from its unmade carriageway. Therefore I do not
consider that this constitutes grounds on which I can object to the development.
The applicant has submitted expert information that states that the development retains all the most
important trees on the site and does not require the removal of any significant trees. It goes on to
say that the layout provides sufficient space for the construction of dwellings outside the canopy
spread of existing trees and that no significant pruning will be required to accommodate the
construction of the development. It states that many of the existing trees are mature and that the
layout accommodates for the spread of trees that are still to mature. The report also states that
strict control through supervision will be required to ensure that trees are protected. Members will
recall that Supplementary Planning Guidance with relation to trees was recently adopted by the
City Council. This states that private gardens should not be planned to include an excessive
proportion overshadowed by trees and that no underground drains or services should be placed
within the root spread of trees. It also states that in the case of residential dwellings a development
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
in which a principal window is overshadowed by a tree or where any part of a tree is within 3.6m of
a window then development will be resisted. The proposed development has been amended again
as a result of my concerns with regard to compliance with the City Council’s Tree Guidance and I
am satisfied that no habitable room window would now be within 3.6m of any part of a tree. In
addition the layout has been amended as a result of the City Council’s senior arboricultural
officer’s concerns about the proximity of buildings to trees and the position of protective fencing
during construction works. The buildings and positions of protective fences now complies with
British Standard 5837:1991 ‘Trees in Relation to Construction’. The arboricultural report
submitted by the applicant states that providing appropriate conditions are imposed and any
contractor complies with those conditions then the development will not result in the loss of any
protected tree.
Congestion and noise during construction is an inevitable result of any building works and I do not
consider that this is a ground for refusal of the application.
I have already outlined the reasons why I do not consider that the development would have a
detrimental effect on the character of the area and now that I am satisfied that the development
would not result in the loss of any protected trees I do not consider that the proposed development
represents an overdevelopment of the site.
I do not consider that the loss of these four unremarkable late 20th century properties would
represent a loss of architectural heritage.
Similarly I do not consider that bearing in mind Government advice on car parking provision there
is too little car parking provision made for this development.
The development has been carefully designed and has been further amended as a result of the City
Council’s concerns regarding the issue of trees and I do not consider that the development would
be overbearing when viewed from neighbouring properties, nor do I consider that it would result in
any significant degree of overlooking.
I do not consider that the wider surrounding area is one where a lack of affordable housing exists
and therefore I do not agree that the development should include an element of affordable housing
provision.
I have received a letter from the head teacher of the local primary school pointing out that the
school is full and has a waiting list for admission. I do not consider that the current lack of places
at the closest school is sufficient to warrant refusal of this development. It is regularly the case that
new housing developments do trigger requirements for additional provision in local schools and I
would expect that any new development on this site would be taken into account by the Director of
Education in accordance with normal practice.
I do not consider that there would be any significant noise or light pollution as a result of the
development.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
Neighbours have argued that the proposed development is against neighbours human rights. In
response I would comment that it is generally accepted that the planning process by its very nature
considers many factors when deciding whether an application should be approved or not and that
the balancing of competing interests takes full account of the human rights of both the objector and
the applicant. The objectors do not specify which Article of the Human Rights Act they consider is
breached but I am satisfied that no breach has occurred.
The applicant has at my request undertaken a bat survey as the possibility of the presence of bats
had been raised by a neighbour. The survey concludes that there is no recent or historic evidence
of a roost and that access for bats in three of the four properties is severely restricted. Full access to
the fourth property is not possible at the moment. The survey recommends that another inspection
is carried out should permission be granted and that it would be preferable if properties were
demolished in April or September. I have attached a condition requiring a further survey to be
undertaken.
Finally, while I understand the detailed concerns of Worsley Golf Club with regard to the
proximity of the development to one of the hardest holes on the golf course I do not consider that
this warrants refusal or amendment of the proposed layout. In addition the closest building to the
golf course has been moved further away from that boundary, and the protected trees, from the
layout on the previous scheme.
The Planning Consultant’s Objection on Behalf of Neighbours
The report from the planning consultants makes it clear that the objectors are not opposed in
principle to a redevelopment of the site but that they strongly feel that the current application has
not addressed the reasons for the refusal of the previous application.
A number of new issues have been raised by the planning consultants. Firstly that the adopted
UDP designates Worsley as an area of restraint and environmental bias and that the stated
objectives include safeguarding areas of high landscape value and restricting urban development.
Their report also goes on to state that the golf course and Broadoak Park that border the site to the
east south and west are designated as Worsley Greenway under policies EN18 and EN25. The
policies state that the City Council will seek to preserve the open character of the Greenway and
will seek to improve the appearance and use of the Greenway for, amongst other things, amenity,
wildlife, conservation and recreational purposes.
In response to these points I would state that the reference to Worsley being an area of restraint and
environmental bias is to be found in the chapter of the UDP on the Plan’s overall approach where
the City is divided into just four different areas. The UDP also states at this point that the approach
in the area of restraint and environmental bias will be one of protecting and enhancing countryside
and open space and limiting development to existing and allocated residential areas. This site is
one that is already developed and it does lie outside, but adjoining the Greenway and I therefore
consider that the application is in accordance with both the overall approach of the UDP and
specifically policies EN18 and EN25.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
The consultant’s report goes on to refer to policies in both the adopted and revised deposit draft
UDPs that have already been covered in my report. It then turns to national planning guidance that
I have also already addressed but does refer to parts of PPG3 that I have not covered. Specifically
the consultants report quotes that part of PPG3 that states that new housing development of
whatever scale should not be viewed in isolation and that considerations of design and layout must
be informed by the wider context, having regard not just to any immediate neighbouring buildings
but the townscape and landscape of the wider locality. The report also goes on to refer to the
document ‘By Design – Better Places to Live’, a guide that aims to deliver the changes advocated
by PPG3. This document promotes greater attention to the principles of good design, and
emphasises that the successful integration of new housing with its surrounding context is a key
issue in the determination of applications. It states that “a crucial first step in achieving this is to
develop a thorough understanding of the context within which the new housing will sit and then of
the nature of the site itself and its immediate surroundings. This initial analysis will inform a
whole range of subsequent design decisions…”
My response to these points is that it is precisely because of the nature of the site and its
relationship to the wider area that it is considered that a higher density of development is
appropriate. It is only because The Coppice is a distinct detached part of Chatsworth Road that the
City Council is so firmly of the opinion that its development in the form now proposed would not
be viewed in the context of other properties on Chatsworth Road and would not have a detrimental
effect on the character of the area. It is only because The Coppice is a cul-de-sac and the land falls
by 8.5m behind existing dwellings on the south side of Chatsworth Road that the development is
considered acceptable. I consider it worth pointing out to objectors and members that officers
have in the past resisted proposals at 48 Chatsworth Road for apartment schemes on the grounds
that they would have a significant detrimental effect on the character of the area.
The consultants report goes on to cover in greater detail issues that I have already addressed in my
report such as the character of the area, the impact of the proposal on that character and whether
this scheme amounts to overdevelopment.
An important consideration addressed by an individual objector as well as by the consultants
relates to land adjacent to 71 Chatsworth Road where an extant planning permission exists for a
new detached dwelling. This dwelling would have habitable room windows directly facing a
retained weeping willow on the site and, beyond the tree, the gable of a three-storey dwelling that
would be both considerably lower that the plot on Chatsworth Road and over 24m away. Other
dwellings would be closer but would be at such an angle that there would be no conflict with
normal City Council standards. I am satisfied that neither development has any significant
detrimental effect on the future occupiers of either scheme.
The consultants report goes on to state that the revised deposit draft UDP indicates that the number
of new houses likely to be provided in Salford in the next seven years on site that are either
allocated or already have planning permission is running well ahead of current Regional Guidance
of 530 dwellings per year and that while this should not mean that windfall sites are no longer
developed it does reinforce that this particular development would not fulfil any particular
objective of the adopted or emerging UDP and Regional planning Guidance in terms of housing
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
supply, regeneration, community and sustainable development so as to outweigh the harm on the
character of the area and justify high density development on the site.
I would respond by stating that the City Council does not seek to justify its recommendation in
terms of the contribution that this site makes towards the supply of housing or its regeneration,
community or sustainable development value. Rather, it does not consider, having carefully
assessed the character of the area and the nature of the site, that this development would have a
significant detrimental effect on the character of the area and that therefore a higher density is
appropriate on this site.
The consultants also consider that the mix of dwellings proposed would not contribute to secure
affordable dwellings or an appropriate mix of accommodation as advocated by PPG3. In response
I would point out that the development provides a wide mix of accommodation that includes
two-bedroomed apartments as well as both semi-detached and detached properties.
The report then addresses the issue of trees but I consider that this has been thoroughly covered
elsewhere in my report.
The report then argues that the proposal would be contrary to the Worsley Tourism Strategy as it
would cause harm to the quality of the local environment enjoyed by tourists. Having carefully
read the said strategy I can find nothing in the proposed development that would have any
significant impact whatsoever on its successful implementation.
Finally, with regard to the comprehensive representations made by the planning consultants, the
need for additional conditions with regard to the provision of a cycle store and full details of the
junction with Chatsworth Road is pointed out. I agree that such conditions are necessary and have
added them. I have also renumbered the conditions and reasons correctly.
I have given further consideration to the issue of residents of this development making an equitable
contribution towards the upkeep of the private, unadopted Chatsworth Road. I am advised that a
fair annual contribution would be £500. This equates to an annual contribution of less than £20 per
new household. I consider that the collection of this money could readily take place under the
auspices of any future management company for this development that the applicant has indicated
would be set up and that this annual sum was given to the local Community Committee to oversee
that such monies were properly spent on the upkeep of Chatworth Road. To ensure equity on all
sides this arrangement would be subject to regular review and I have sent instructions to the City
Administrator to cover this issue in the legal agreement that is already being drafted.
I would finally add that none of the issues or arguments raised in the planning consultants report or
in any new letters of objection have led me to the conclusion that this application should be
refused. My recommendations remains unaltered.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
The Planning Consultant’s Report on Behalf of the City Council
The view of the independent planning consultant is that the principal considerations are the impact
of the proposal on the character of the area, upon trees, upon the amenity of neighbouring
residents, the sustainability of this location and highway safety.
With regard to the impact on the character of the area the independent planning consultant states
that The Coppice appears to be a somewhat separate enclave with a distinctive character of its own.
It is acknowledged that the application will change this but just because the character of
development is different it does not follow that it causes harm to any interest of acknowledged
importance. The consultant concludes on this point that overall, on an objective analysis, he would
regard the change in character as having a broadly neutral effect. He does, however, consider that
the layout of the buildings could easily be improved. The applicant has amended his application in
line with the changes recommended by the independent planning consultant.
With regard to trees it is the view of the consultant that the impact on peripheral trees appears not
to be unacceptable.
On the issue of impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents the report states that the
relationship between the proposed new dwelling at 73 and the application dwellings needs to be
carefully assessed. The consultant does raise concerns regarding the impact of the additional
traffic on neighbours and he considers that this increase in movements will not go unnoticed and is
bound to have a particular impact on the amenity of the occupiers of the three nearest dwellings.
The consultant’s concern with regard to highway safety is that no details of the junction of The
Coppice with Chatsworth Road appear to have been submitted and that given the importance of
striking a balance between highway safety and maintaining the character of the area at this access
point, these further details should be submitted for consideration now as part of the current
application.
With regard to the sustainability of the location the independent consultant considers that this is
not a particularly unsustainable location, although neither is it one where high densities should be
encouraged at a matter of principle.
He concludes his report by saying that in principle the site is a largely self-contained area where
the character of the surrounding area has relatively little significance and that subject to
landscaping proposals he sees no strong grounds for rejecting this application in terms of its impact
on the character of the area. Nor does he see any strong grounds for refusal in terms of the impact
of the development upon the outlook and privacy of the two existing dwellings that overlook the
site. The impact of the development on trees is a matter for the City Council’s arboricultural
officer but he sees no significant causes for concern.
His remaining concerns are the impact of the access improvements on the character of the
Chatsworth Road frontage, the likely impact on residential amenity of the significant additional
volume of traffic, the relationship between the proposal and the approved dwelling at 73
Chatsworth Road and highway safety at the access onto Chatsworth Road. Apart from the impact
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
on residential amenity these are all matters that could be resolved by the submission of further
details by the applicants. The consultants concluding point is that whilst the impact of the
additional traffic is a material consideration, he has not seen an application refused, or an appeal
dismissed, on that issue alone and that where Inspectors have supported residents, it has been in
conjunction with other, perhaps stronger, reasons for refusal.
Conclusions
I consider therefore that the main planning issues are whether the development would result in the
loss of protected trees on the site and whether the density and intensity of the proposed layout is
such that it would have a significant detrimental effect on the character of the area or on the
amenity of neighbouring residents.
The application has been reduced by three dwellings and this has resulted in a development that is
both less dense and intense than that previously refused but in a development that would not have
a detrimental effect on the character of the area. The issue of trees has been the subject of much
discussion and the submitted scheme has been addressed in an amended layout as a result of both
my concerns with regard to the SPG and the concerns of the City Council’s arboricultural officer
with regard to BS5837. On balance, I conclude that given the additional space given to trees on the
site there would not be a significant loss of trees as a result of the development that would be to the
significant detrimental effect on the character of the area.
I am particularly mindful of the comments of the independent planning consultant. His brief was
not to support any particular view but to make an objective assessment of the issues. His report,
which is attached, clearly supports the initial view taken by officers on this application. With
regard to his concerns I have attached conditions requiring the submission of further information
and the applicant has amended his layout in accordance with the consultant’s advice.
I am satisfied therefore that the development proposed would be in accordance with policies EN7,
T13 and DEV1, as well as policies H6 and H11, of the adopted UDP and would not have a
significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring occupier, the street scene or the area in general
and that permission should be granted subject to the following conditions.
The applicant has agreed to enter into a legal agreement for the provision of £74,375 in compliance
with policies H6 and H11 of the adopted UDP and an additional sum of £500 per annum towards
the upkeep of Chatsworth Road.
RECOMMENDATION
that the Director of Corporate Services
into a legal agreement under Section 106
Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment
and implementation of, informal open
18
be authorised to enter
of the Town and Country
of a commuted sum for,
space and children’s
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
equipped play space in the local area to the value of £74,375
and the payment of £500 per annum for the upkeep of Chatsworth
Road;
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning
permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject
to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal
agreement,
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals would not be in
accordance with policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, including at least two
replacement trees for every tree removed, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of development and thereafter
shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs
dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services.
3. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
5. No dwelling/apartment shall be first occupied until a scheme detailing physical security
measures including the definition of defensible space within the site and the provision of
natural surveillance has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full in
accordance with the approved details.
6. No dwelling shall be first occupied until the access road from Chatsworth Road and the
associated provision for off street parking has been completed and made available for the use
of that dwelling. The spaces shall be available at all times for the parking of a private motor
vehicle.
7. No development shall commence until full details of the layout of the access of The Coppice
with Chatsworth Road have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
Development Services. Such details as are approved shall be implemented in full prior to the
occupation of any dwelling.
8. No development shall commence until details of cycle storage have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such details as are approved
shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
9. Prior to the demolition of any property a further bat survey shall be undertaken and submitted
to the Director of Development Services. Any recommendations in the survey shall be carried
out in full.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
5. To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with
policies DEV 1 and DEV4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. To ensure that a satisfactory provision is made for vehicular access and the parking of vehicles
in connection with each dwelling in accordance with Policy T13 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
7. To ensure that satisfactory access is provided at the same time as trees that are the subject of a
tree preservation order are protected in accordance with policies T13 and EN7 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
8. In the interests of cyclists in accordance with policy A10 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit
Draft Unitary Development Plan.
9. In order to protect a protected species in accordance with policy EN7E of the City of Salford
Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
2. This permission shall relate to the amended layout 2116(PI)100 revision V.
3. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding
details of drainage.
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from the Greater Manchester Police
Architectural Liaison Unit.
5. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
APPLICATION No:
04/48250/FUL
APPLICANT:
Trucktech
LOCATION:
Site Of Former Concrete Works Langley Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a truck service centre including two storey office
building together with associated car parking and alterations to
existing vehicular access
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the former Agecroft concrete works on Langley Road
opposite the Hercules site. The site is bounded by industrial development to the south and east, the
Manchester, Bolton and Bury canal to the west and by kennels to the north. Agecroft cemetery lies
to the north east.
The site covers an area of 1.15 hectares and is currently vacant and overgrown. Access to the site
is from Langley Road and this boundary is marked by a 3.5m high brick wall.
It is proposed to construct a truck service centre with two-storey offices. Parking would be
provided for 51 cars and 45 trucks. The premises would provide advanced truck servicing and
maintenance on a 24 hour (emergency service) basis. The building would measure approximately
55m by 22m and would be located to the rear of the site. It would provide servicing bays for 6
trucks and would be faced in brick with a profiled steel cladding roof.
CONSULTATIONS
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
New Deal for Communities – No objections in principle but concerned with regard to the impact of
the development on residential properties further along Langley Road and seeks to ensure high
quality landscaping and boundary treatment.
British Waterways – The Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Restoration Project adjoins the site.
An improvement to the towpath to the benefit of the canal and public would be advantageous.
Environment Agency – No objections in principle but requests conditions and provides advice.
Director of Environmental Services – No objections.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Lynwood and 2 to 62 Langley Road
1 Abram Street
1 Dixon Street
2 Kay Street
1 and 3 Regatta Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity with a 127 signature petition attached. The following issues have been raised:Noise and disturbance from trucks passing homes
Local drains are always blocked
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC13/14 Sites for Industry and Warehousing
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, EN27 Manchester, Bolton
and Bury Canal.
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, CH9 Manchester, Bolton and Bury
Canal.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the proposed development would
have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbours.
The site is allocated for industrial purposes under policy EC13/14. Policy DEV1 and DES7 state
that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity
of neighbours.
Impact on neighbours
With regard to the adjacent kennels and the associated residential property the animals sleeping
quarters are located within 5m of the application site but I am satisfied that the main activity on the
application site would take place at the service bays located on that half of the site furthest away
from the common boundary. The residential property is over 40m from the application site. The
part closest to the kennels would be used for the parking of vehicles. As the site is located within
an industrial area and given the layout proposed, I do not consider that the development would
create an unacceptable level of disturbance.
With regard to the area of terraced houses further down Langley Road I note that a previous
decision of the Panel on the Tarmac site (200m to the south of this site and where significant heavy
goods vehicle movements were involved) included a condition regarding traffic not leaving the
site and passing by these houses between the hours of 7pm to 7am. The applicant has accepted the
imposition of a similarly worded condition on this application and given that the site is located
within an industrial area and is allocated for such purposes I am satisfied that residents to the south
of the site would not suffer a significant loss of amenity as a result of this development.
I am satisfied that the proposed development would not conflict with policies DEV1 or DES7 with
regard to the effect on neighbours.
Other issues
The site is adjacent to the towpath and the Canal. I have attached conditions regarding
improvements to the Canal as well as landscaping that will ensure that the appearance of the site
from the towpath is enhanced and that some contribution is made towards the successful long-term
future of the Canal as required by Policy CH9.
Drainage of the site is a matter that any developer must address and I have received no objections
from the Environment Agency on this issue.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
 additional neighbour consultation of the area of housing to the south of the site was carried
out at the request of one of the occupiers
 the application has been amended to bring the access control barrier a suitable distance
back from the highway
 the Canal will be enhanced
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
CONCLUSION
The main issue is the effect of a 24 hour operation on the amenity of neighbours. I am satisfied that
the development is in accordance with policy EC13 and that it would not conflict with policies
DEV1 and DES7 subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
3. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roofs of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director
of Development Services.
4. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
5. No Heavy Goods Vehicle leaving or entering the site shall do so via the southerly direction
between the hours of 7pm and 7am on any day of the week.
6. Prior to the development being brought into use full details of signs to be erected at the access
to the site including the size, siting and wording shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by
the Director of Development Services.
7. Prior to the commencement of development details of a protected pedestrian route from
Langley Road to the office entrance shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
8. Any facilities for the storage of chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded
by impervious bund walls, details of which shall be submitted to, approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services and implemented in accordanec with such details as are
approved prior to the development being brought into use. The volume of the bunded
compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is
multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to 110% of the capacity of the
largest tank, or 25% of the total combined capacity of the interconnected tanks, whichever is
the greatest. All filling points, vents, guages and sight glasses must be located within the bund.
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or
underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from
accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to
discharge downwards into the bund.
9. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all
surface water drainage from impermeable parking areas, roadways and hardstandings for
vehicles, shall be passed through trapped gullies with an overall capacity compatible with the
site being drained.
10. No development shall commence until a scheme for the restoration, improvement and/or
maintenance of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal in accordance with the requirements of
policy CH9 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such details as
are approved shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme.
11. All areas used for the washing of vehicles shall be contained and connected to foul sewers to
prevent the discharge of contaminated drainage to underground strata or controlled waters.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Reason: To ensure the development fits in with the existing buildings in the vicinity in
accordance with policy DEV 3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
8. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
9. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordanec with policy DEV1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
10. In order to ensure a successful long-term future for the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal in
accordance with Policy CH9 of the Revised Deposit Draft City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
11. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
2. The 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
3. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
DEV1 Development Criteria
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from British Waterways.
5. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
6. The applicant shall encourage all truck drivers to access and egress the site from, and to, the
north.
APPLICATION No:
04/48254/FUL
APPLICANT:
Wainhomes (Developments) Ltd
LOCATION:
Site Of The Oaks Oakwood Drive Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing building and erection of one detached
dwelling and three - four storey buildings comprising 61
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
apartments together with associated landscaping, car parking
and construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to The Oaks, licensed premises and function rooms of Manchester Road.
The site covers an area of approximately 0.7 hectare and is bounded a recreation ground to the
west, How Clough woods and Site of Biological Importance to the east and south and by
residential development on Oakwood Drive to the north. Beyond a narrow tree belt to the south is
further residential development on Woodside Avenue.
The only vehicular access to the site is from Oakwood Drive.
The site falls from north to south by over 4m and is currently occupied by The Oaks and a
two-storey outbuilding with the remainder of the site being given over to grounds and car parking.
The site contains a significant number of mature trees and Tree Preservation Order 78 protects the
majority of these.
It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site and erect three four-storey blocks of
apartments and a single three-storey detached dwelling providing a total of 61 dwellings. All the
apartments would be two-bedroomed and the single detached property would have four bedrooms.
The first block would be sited approximately on the site of the current building with the new
detached building being located between the first block and existing houses on Oakwood Drive.
The second block would be located approximately 7m to the south and at approximately 1m lower
with the third block a further 27m away on the site of the surface car park at the bottom of the site
at a level approximately 2m lower than the second block.
The detached dwelling would be 13m from the closest dwelling on Oakwood Drive and the first
block some 29m away. The third block would be approximately 2m higher than the closest houses
on Woodside Avenue and approximately 28m away from the closest house.
A total of 61 car parking spaces would be provided for the apartments. The detached dwelling
would have a double garage and drive.
With regard to trees on the site an arboricultural report has been submitted with the application.
The main conclusions of this report are that while there are a considerable number of mature trees
on the site there has been no management of these trees and many are in poor condition or are
dangerous. The report lists a total of 77 trees. Of these a total of 50 are recommended for removal.
Of those 50 trees 41 are protected by TPO.
The applicant has undertaken a bat survey that will be submitted shortly and the results of this will
be reported to the Panel.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
SITE HISTORY
In February 2000 and outline application for the demolition of the existing buildings and the
erection of 27 houses on the site was withdrawn (99/39468/OUT).
In February 1986 planning permission was refused for the erection of 16 dwellings on the site
(E/19409). There were two reasons for refusal; firstly, that the proposed development would result
in the loss of a pleasant area of open land that, together with adjoining open land in How Clough
to the east and Oakwood Park to the west, contributes to the open character and environmental
quality of the area generally and its loss would thereby seriously detract from the amenity of the
area, and secondly, that the proposed development would result in the loss of a number of trees
included within a tree preservation order and as such would detract from the environmental
quality of the area.
In September 1985 planning permission was refused for the erection of 19 dwellings on the site
(E/18860). The only reason for refusal related to the loss of trees and the resulting injury to the
amenity of the area.
CONSULTATIONS
United Utilities – No objections in principle and provides advice
Environment Agency – No objections in principle
Director of Environmental Health – No response to date
Greater Manchester Ecology Unit – No objections in principle but require a bat survey to be
undertaken
English Nature – No response to date
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections in principle but provide
advice about detailed security matters.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified of both the original application and the
amended plans:
1 to 11, 11A, 15, 2 to 20 and Oakwood Lodge, Oakwood Drive
377, 377A, 379 and 340 to 346 Manchester Road
2 to 12 Oakwood Avenue
15 to 19 and 16 Woodside Avenue
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
28 to 68 Old Clough Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 18 letters of representation / objections in response to the planning
application publicity. The following issues have been raised:Loss of green space
Increase in traffic and creation of traffic hazard
Loss of local pub
Enough building in Worsley area over the last 10-15 years
Application forms have been filled in incorrectly
Insufficient car parking spaces have been provided
Lack of information about drainage of the site
Loss of trees
Loss of wildlife
Enough housing developments have been granted permission already
Loss of privacy
The development will be overbearing, oppressive and intrusive
Four-storey development is too much
Increase in noise and pollution
Overdevelopment of the site
Could members visit the site before any decision is made?
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 Meeting Housing Need, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New
Housing Developments, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, EN7 Conservation of
Trees and Woodlands, EN2 Development Within Green Belt, EN5 Nature Conservation.
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision Within
New Housing Developments, DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and
Neighbours, ST11 Location of New Development, EN7C Nature Conservation Sites of Local
Importance, A8 Impact of Development on the Highway Network, EN1 Development Affecting
the Green Belt,
PLANNING APPRAISAL
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of development on the site,
the overall level of the development on this site and whether this results in an unacceptable effect
on the existing treescape, the amenity of neighbouring residents, the local highway network or on
nature conservation.
Principle of development
Since the previous refusal of permission for development on the site Government has published
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on Housing that encourages the re-use of previously developed
land rather than Greenfield sites, and encourages the efficient use of land by avoiding
developments of less than 30 dwellings per hectare.
This site is classified as previously developed land and its re-use is in accordance with PPG3.
Overall level of development
Policies H1 of the revised draft UDP states that all new housing development will be required to
meet a number of criteria that includes contributing towards the provision of a balanced mix of
dwellings within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability; not lead to an
oversupply of any particular type of residential accommodation or otherwise result in an
unacceptable impact on the housing market; provide accommodation at an appropriate density for
the site as well as being consistent with other policies and proposals of the UDP. Policy EN22 and
EN1 are relevant here. Both state that planning permission will not be granted for development
conspicuous from the Green Belt that might be visually detrimental by reason of its siting,
materials or design, even though it would not prejudice the purposes of including land in the Green
Belt.
PPG3 states that local planning authorities should encourage housing development that makes
more efficient use of land (between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare) and seek greater intensity of
development at places with good public transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local
centres or around major nodes along good quality public transport corridors.
Taking account of the proposed density of nine dwellings per hectare, I am satisfied the scale of
development is appropriate having regard for the sites characteristics. The site would be well
screened by existing trees and not surrounded by existing residential development.
With regard to the Green Belt issue I am satisfied that the large number of mature trees that abut
the site within the How Clough SBI and Green Belt and that the land falls away into the Clough
before rising again some considerable distance from the site ensures that no development within
the site, even one four storeys high, will not harm the visual amenity of the Green Belt.
I therefore consider that the overall level of development is appropriate and that the development is
in accordance with policies H1 and EN1 of the revised deposit draft UDP.
Treescape
Policy EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the conservation of trees and woodland.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
The City Council’s arboricultural officer has inspected the site. He is broadly in agreement with
the findings of the arboricultural report submitted with the application. In only one case has the
City Council’s arboricultural officer disagreed with the report findings that a tree should be felled.
In other cases he has recommended that trees be felled that the report stated could be retained.
This tree that is to be retained is shown as such on the amended plans and is over 4m from the
nearest apartment block.
The site is surrounded to the east and south by large mature trees. All of these, with the exception
of one tree that is in poor condition and which the City Council’s arboricultural officer has
requested be removed by the developer, will remain. Within the site, the two main areas of trees
will remain as they do now and the overall effect of the tree removal proposed will, because of the
lack of management in the past have an indiscernible impact on views into the site from the
surrounding area.
With regard to the City Council’s normal requirement for a two for one tree replacement the
previous lack of management of the treescape has meant that many trees are coming out for sound
arboricultural reasons. It would be impossible to replace all 82 new trees within the site and so I
have investigated whether it would be possible to plant some within the adjacent park. The
Director of Education and Leisure would prefer to see new trees planted within the wider area and
would require a contribution to be made towards management and maintenance of these trees. The
applicant is already contributing in excess of £100,000 and so beyond ensuring a two for one
replacement I do not consider further contribution towards management and maintenance
appropriate in this instance.
I do not therefore consider that the loss of trees is unacceptable or that the development would
result in a material loss of green space or that it is in conflict with policy EN7.
Amenity of neighbouring residents
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the effects of a development on neighbouring residents. Policy
DES7 states that developments will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact
on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
Between blocks one and two the only windows that face each other are secondary windows. The
buildings do not affect residents of Oakwood Drive. I have carefully assessed the impact of the
third block on the amenity of residents of Woodside Avenue. Although the proposed four-storey
development would be on ground 2m higher than the closest dwellings on Woodside Avenue the
mature trees within the How Clough SBI would substantially screen the existing dwellings. I
accept that in winter the amount of screening would be substantially less that it currently is at the
height of summer but I am mindful of the City Council’s newly adopted standards with regard to
privacy distances as contained in Supplementary Guidance on House Extensions. It would
normally be expected that even if habitable room windows were to face each other, which, in this
instance they do not, a distance of 27m would be required between the new development and
existing dwellings on Woodside Avenue. A distance of 28m is proposed in this instance. The
applicant has amended his plans by showing that all windows on the elevation facing Woodside
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
Avenue would be obscure glazed and given that the closest buildings do not directly face each
other and that a substantial screen of mature trees within the How Clough SBI will remain I am
satisfied that there will be no loss of privacy and that the proposed development will not be
overbearing, oppressive or intrusive.
I am satisfied that the development would not result in a significant impact on neighbouring
residents and that it does not conflict with that part of policy DEV1 relating to the impact on
neighbours or policy DES7.
Impact on the local highway network
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the relationship of the development to the road and public
transport networks. Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have
an unacceptable impact on highway safety or have an unacceptable impact on the ability of the
Strategic Route Network to accommodate appropriate traffic flows.
It must be remembered that the existing development already generates significant amounts of
traffic. It is accepted that residential development will create peak traffic flows during rush hour
but I am satisfied that the A6, although busy during these times, can accommodate the
comparatively small amount of increased traffic generated by this development and that there
would not be any significant amount of queuing to get onto the A6. I am satisfied that there would
be no unacceptable effect on the highway network, highway safety or on the ability of the A6 to
accommodate traffic.
Nature Conservation
Policy EN5 states that the City Council will seek to improve the environment for nature through
the protection of SBIs and that planning permission will not normally be granted for development
that would have an unacceptable impact on any site or would prejudice the functioning of a
wildlife corridor or would otherwise prejudice the implementation of the policy. Policy EN7C
states that development that would adversely affect the nature conservation value of an SBI will
only be permitted where: the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the reduction in the
nature conservation interest of the site; the detrimental impact on the nature conservation interest
of the site has been minimised as far as is practicable; and appropriate mitigation is provided to
ensure that the overall nature conservation interest of the area is not diminished.
There is currently an access road running alongside the boundary to the How Clough Site of
Biological Importance. The proposed site layout makes provision for significant areas of open
space and I have attached conditions regarding two for one tree replacement and the submission of
a scheme of mitigation measures to ensure that the nature conservation interest of the site is not
diminished. I am therefore satisfied that the development will not have any significant detrimental
effect on any nature conservation interest and is in accordance with policy EN7C of the
development plan.
Representations not covered in main issues
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
The closure of a local facility such as this cannot be controlled through the planning process and
The Oaks could close whether or not this application is approved or refused. The applicant has
corrected errors in the application forms and I do not consider this issue relevant to the
consideration of the application and I am satisfied that no neighbour has been disadvantaged by
these errors. The amount of car parking proposed is in excess of one space per apartment. This is
in accordance with Government advice regarding reducing reliance on the private car and is
completely appropriate in this location so close to the A6 and good public transport. Drainage
issues will have to be satisfactorily addressed and both the Environment Agency and United
Utilities have no objections in principle to the development but have provided advice. I do not
consider that there would be any significant loss of wildlife and the additional tree planting that
will result from the two for one replacement tree condition should ensure that the opposite is the
case. I am mindful of the fact that it is not likely to be possible to plant all the replacement trees
within the site and therefore I have attached a condition requiring agreement to be reached about
the location of new tree planting in the adjacent Oakwood Park as well as within the site itself. I do
not agree that the number of storeys should be limited to three or that the development will result in
noise and pollution. I would suggest that instead, for those residents closest to these licensed
premises, this development would represent a welcome reduction in noise and pollution. The issue
of members visiting the site is a decision for members alone to take.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT









The application has been submitted as a result of a number of pre-application discussions
with officers.
The submitted application has been amended twice to improve the setting of the second
block and to provide disabled parking bays and pedestrian routes to car parking areas.
The application has been amended so that significant trees at the entrance to the site can be
retained.
The existing entrance into the site marked by posts is to be retained.
The developer has met with the occupier of the adjoining property on Oakwood Drive and
the application has been amended to address the neighbours concerns regarding boundary
treatment. In addition the applicant has agreed to give these neighbours a small amount of
land that will allow the occupiers of this property to easily access their drive.
The application has been amended by the developer agreeing to install obscured glazing to
windows facing houses on Woodside Avenue as a result of these neighbours concerns.
The developer has agreed to contribute £108,200 towards children’s equipped play space
and open space in accordance with policies H6 and H11.
Additional neighbours on Old Clough Lane were notified of the application as a result of
other neighbours concerns.
Two trees would be planted for every protected tree removed and a proportion of these
would be planted in the local area.
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION


15th July 2004
The possibility of retaining the existing outbuildings on the site was discussed with the
occupiers of the adjoining dwelling and investigated by the applicant as a result of my
concerns.
The nature conservation value of the site will not be diminished as a result of the
development.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application have been the principle of development, the
overall level of the development on this site and whether this results in an unacceptable effect on
the existing treescape, the amenity of neighbouring residents, the local highway network or nature
conservation.
I am satisfied that there would be no significant effect on the local highway network, on the
amenity of neighbouring residents or on the existing treescape, Green Belt or SBI. I am also
satisfied that the level of development is appropriate on this site and that therefore the development
is in accordance with both national policy guidance and with policies in both the adopted and
revised deposit draft UDPs.
I therefore recommend that the application be approved subject to the following recommendation
and conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a
commuted sum for, and implementation of, equipped children’s play space and informal
open space in accordance with policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan in the local area to the value of £108,200;
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning
permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject
to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal
agreement,
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposal would be contrary to
policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services within six months of the
commencement of development. Such scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to
be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and shall include two trees to be
planted for every tree removed 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 Director of Development Services.
3. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. Standard Condition C05C No topping etc to Trees protected by TPO
5. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls of
the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
6. Within three months of the commencement of development samples of the facing materials to
be used for the roofs of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
7. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
8. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision and implementation of a
surface water regulation system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director
of Development Services. The development shall be completed in accordance with the
approved scheme.
9. Within six months of the first occupation of any unit Oakwood Drive shall be resurfaced in
accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
10. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the location and design of cycle
stores and recycling facilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. Such approved cycle stores and recycling facilities shall be
constructed in accordance with the approved details and shall be made available for use prior to
the first occupation of any unit.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
4. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
5. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
6. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
7. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
8. To reduce the risk of flooding in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
9. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
10. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities.
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater
Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit.
5. The development creates an opportunity for Black Poplars (Populus nigra) to be planted and
the advice of the Lancashire, Manchester and North Merseyside Wildlife Trust should be
sought as to the most appropriate way to incorportate it into the development.
6. 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.
7. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
DEV1 Development Criteria
EN5 Nature Conservation
H1 Meeting Housing Need
H6 and H11 Open space Provision Within New Housing Developments
DEV2 Good Design
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
EN22 Development Within Green Belt
APPLICATION No:
04/48259/FUL
APPLICANT:
M17 Developments
LOCATION:
Land At The Junction Of Greengate West And Blackfriars Road
Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Dem of existing building and erection of multistorey building (4
to 9 storeys) comprising 51 apartments and one ground floor
retail unit together with associated landscaping, car parking at
lower ground floor and new vehicular access
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is currently occupied by a vacant former industrial building. The site is bounded by
Greengate West to the north, Blackfriars Road to the west, a car showroom to the south and vacant
land to the east. On the opposite side of Greengate West are a number of two storey residential
properties. There is a residential tower block on the opposite side of Blackfriars Road.
The proposal has been significantly amended from that originally submitted in order to address my
concerns regarding the height of the building, particularly in relation to the properties on the
opposite side of Greengate West. The proposed building would therefore vary in height. At the
corner of Blackfriars Road at Greengate West, the proposed building would be four storeys in
height. It would increase to a maximum of seven storeys along the Greengate West frontage.
Along the Blackfriars Road frontage, the proposed building would increase to nine storeys towards
the adjacent car showroom.
A total of 31 car parking spaces would be provided at lower ground level. Vehicular access into the
car park would be achieved from Greengate West. The main pedestrian entrance into the proposed
building would be provided from Blackfriars Road. It is also proposed to provide a retail unit on
the ground floor of the building, at the junction of Greengate West and Blackfriars Road. A
landscaped garden area for the future residents of the proposed building would be provided within
an internal courtyard.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
SITE HISTORY
In October 2002, planning permission was granted for the change of use of the vacant warehouses
and offices and the erection of a new residential wing to form 30 flats together with associated car
parking and vehicular and pedestrian access. (ref: 02/44311/COU).
In March 2002, an application for the change of use of the vacant warehouses and offices and
erection of a new residential wing to form 31 flats together with associated car parking and
vehicular and pedestrian access was submitted (ref: 02/43946/FUL). The application was
subsequently withdrawn in May 2002 as a result of my concerns relating to the design, siting and
layout of the building.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – comments received, including that the site is
well located in relation to public transport, being within walking distance of bus stops on
Blackfriars Road and Manchester City Centre.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – comments received. The ALO is
concerned that the proposed building is located within an area of significant crime levels. A
number of recommendations have been made which would improve security, including the
provision of secure exit and entry controls to the car park and the pedestrian entrance, the inclusion
of anti ram raid protection measures to the ground floor retail units and the provision of
appropriate boundary treatment to the landscaped garden area.
Environment Agency – no objections
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – no comments received to date
United Utilities – no objections to the principle of the development but advises that the applicant
discusses the proposal in full with United Utilities
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 17th May 2004
A press notice was published on 13th May 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
2 – 8 (E) Greengate
Renault, Trinity Way
1 – 33 Anaconda Drive
1 – 9 (O) Carding Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of representation in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS2 – Greengate North
Other policies: H6 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
H11 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
EC3 – Re-use of Sites and Premises
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H8 - Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Developments
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design and Crime
DES13 – Design Statements
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the
redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is acceptable; whether the proposed design is
appropriate; whether there would be an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents; whether the proposed level of car parking is satisfactory; whether there
would be adequate open space provision; whether the application would make an appropriate
contribution towards environmental improvements within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy
Area; and whether the application accords with the relevant provisions of both the Adopted and
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I will deal with each in turn below.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
The Principle of Residential Development
Adopted Policy CS2 states that the renewal of the Greengate North area will be promoted through
a number of measures including, inter alia, the redevelopment of vacant land for a mixture of uses
and the retention and improvement of industrial buildings.
Adopted 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 by promoting a number of
measures, including the release of land to accommodate new house building.
Adopted Policy EC3 states that where existing industrial and non-retail commercial land or
premises become vacant, the Council will seek to re-use or redevelop them for similar or related
uses, except where one or more of a number of criteria are met. These include where the site or
premises could be used for other purposes without resulting in a shortfall in the range of sites or
premises available for economic development.
Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should, inter alia, contribute to the provision
of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area, not lead to an oversupply of any particular
type of residential accommodation and provide a high quality residential environment.
Although the site was previously used for industrial purposes, it has been vacant for a number of
years. This is evidence of the absence of any interest in the re-use of the site for industrial or other
employment-generating purposes. The property is currently in a poor condition and detracts from
the appearance of the area. In light of the previous permission for the conversion of the property to
apartments and the erection of a new residential wing, I consider that the principle of the
redevelopment of the site for residential purposes has already been established. I therefore have no
objection to the loss of this industrial site and do not consider that there would be a shortfall in the
range of sites or premises available for economic development as a result. This proposal would
result in the removal of a vacant and derelict building and its replacement of a modern residential
building, which I consider would result in improvements to the area. On the above basis, I consider
that the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes accords with the relevant provisions of
the above policies and I therefore have no objections to the application in this regard.
Design
Adopted Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard should be had in the
determination of planning applications. Of most relevance to this application are the location of the
proposed development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size and
density of the proposed development, the relationship to existing services and community
facilities, the relationship to the road and public transport networks, the likely scale of traffic
generation, the visual appearance of the development and landscaping and open space provision.
Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the
Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
Adopted Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and
property security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors
including the provision of security features.
Draft 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.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
The proposal has been amended as a result of my concerns relating to the relationship to
neighbouring residential properties. Whilst this will be discussed in more detail in the next section
of this report, these amendments have inevitably resulted in changes to the design of the building.
The building would be four storeys, increasing to a maximum of seven storeys along the Greengate
West frontage and five storeys increasing to nine storeys along Blackfriars Road. The design of the
proposed building needs to reflect its location at the junction of Greengate West and Blackfriars
Road, which is a prominent street corner. It is proposed to site a retail unit on the ground floor of
the building with an entrance at this prominent corner. Above the retail unit would be the balconies
of the residential units. I consider the design of the building reflects the importance of this corner
and am satisfied with the design in this regard.
The applicant has indicated that the materials would comprise brickwork and timber cladding with
an aluminium roof. Whilst I consider these to be acceptable in principle, I have attached a
condition requiring the submission and approval of all materials prior to the commencement of the
development. I am satisfied that this will ensure that the materials will be of a suitably high quality
and in keeping with the surrounding area.
The ground floor retail unit on the corner of Greengate West and Blackfriars Road would enhance
activity on the ground floor of the building. This, together with the pedestrian entrances to the
building from both Blackfriars Road and Greengate West and the vehicular access into the
building from Greengate West would increase the level of surveillance. The apartments fronting
Greengate West and Blackfriars Road would ensure that there would be an adequate level of
overlooking of the streets, which would also increase natural surveillance. The comments of the
ALO mainly relate to the security of the parking area and ground floor retail units, the provision of
appropriate boundary treatment, the provision of an appropriate entry system to the apartments. I
have attached a condition requiring the submission and approval of a landscaping scheme which
would include details of the boundary treatment. I am therefore satisfied that the boundary
treatment used would be appropriate in visual terms and would provide a satisfactory level of
security. I have attached an informative drawing the applicant’s attention to the comments of the
ALO.
In light of the above, I am satisfied that the design of the proposed building is acceptable. I
consider the height of the building to be appropriate to its surroundings and am of the opinion that
the use of high quality materials would ensure that the building would be a positive addition to the
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
area. I am also of the opinion that the proposed building would promote a high level of natural
surveillance. I therefore consider that the proposal complies with the provisions of the above
policies.
Impact on Neighbouring Residents
Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The proposed building would be 22m from the residential properties on the opposite side of
Greengate West. As mentioned above, the proposal has been amended from that originally
submitted in order to reduce the impact on the residents of these properties. The height of the
Greengate West elevation has been reduced by three storeys at the junction with Blackfriars Road.
The application site is located within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area and within the
regional centre. High density development which makes efficient use of previously-developed
sites is therefore appropriate. In order to achieve high density development, it is often necessary to
reduce the interface standards, ie. the distances between buildings, which are ordinarily applied to
proposals in other parts of the city. I consider that the proposal has been satisfactorily amended to
address my concerns in relation to the height of the proposed building compared to the heights of
neighbouring properties. In addition, the redevelopment of this site would result in the removal of
a derelict building, which is currently in a poor condition. I am therefore of the opinion that the
proposed building would be a positive addition and would contribute to improving the appearance
of the area. I am satisfied that the proposed building would be a sufficient distance from
neighbouring dwellings so as not to result in unacceptable detrimental impacts to the amenity of
existing residents. Given the regenerative benefits of the proposed building, I consider the
application to be acceptable in this regard.
Car Parking
Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is
provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards.
Draft Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists
and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
A total of 31 car parking spaces would be provided within the site. This equates to 61% of the total
number of apartments proposed. In light of national and regional planning policy and guidance and
Draft UDP policy, which aim to reduce reliance on the private car and encourage the use of other
modes of transport, and given the site’s location in close proximity to the City Centre and the
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
facilities and services therein, I consider the proposed number of car parking spaces to be
appropriate. I have attached a condition requiring the provision of cycle storage areas, which I am
satisfied could be easily accommodated within the building. I am therefore of the opinion that the
proposal accords with Draft Policy A10.
Open Space
Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play within
new housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11 which sets out a sliding scale for
such provision.
Draft Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
Amenity space for future residents would be provided within a landscaped garden area within an
internal courtyard. In addition, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution towards the
provision of open space in the area, in accordance with the above policies and the recently adopted
Supplementary Planning Guidance. The contribution in this regard would be £59,573, based on the
number of bedspaces proposed. I am satisfied that this contribution complies with Adopted
policies H6 and H11.
Environmental Improvements within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area
In accordance with the Council’s Development Control Policy Note in relation to developments
within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area, the applicant has agreed to make a financial
contribution towards environmental improvements within Chapel Street. The applicant has
therefore agreed to contribute £51,000, based on £1,000 per apartment. I am of the opinion that this
accords with the Council’s policies in this regard.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The height of the proposed building has been reduced as a result of my concerns regarding the
relationship between the building and neighbouring residential properties. The proposed
amendments have resulted in improvements to the scheme and the height of the building along the
Greengate West frontage has been reduced. In addition, the financial contributions to be made in
accordance with the Council’s Open Space SPG and the Chapel Street Policy Note would add
value to the proposal.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes is
acceptable. The building would make a positive contribution to the area and would result in the
removal of a vacant building. The proposed level of car parking is acceptable and the financial
contributions agreed accord with the Council’s policies relating to open space and Chapel Street
regeneration. I am satisfied that the application accords with the relevant provisions of both the
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. I therefore make the following
recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
That Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below once the
legal agreement has been signed:
i.
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a
contribution to the provision of open space and a commuted sum for, and implementation
of, environmental improvements in the local area to the value of £59,573 and £51,000
respectively;
ii.
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning
permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
iii.
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject
to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal
agreement,
iv.
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the
aim and objectives of policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary
Development Plan or the aim and objectives of the Chapel Street Regeneration Project.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for
the external elevations and roof of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Director of Development Services. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved
materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Director of Development Services.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme showing the
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
provision of waste recycling facilities within the site shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be implements
prior to first occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved, unless agreed otherwise in
writing by the Director of Development Services.
5. The car parking spaces shown on drawing no. __ shall be made available prior to first
occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved and shall be available at all times the
premises is in use.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for cycle storage
within the curtilage of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first
occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved and shall be available at all times the
premises is in use.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Reason: In order to encourage waste recycling, in accordance with Policy MW11 of the
Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
5. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
6. In order to encourage the use of more sustainable transport modes, in accordance with Policy
A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
CS2 - Greengate North; H6 - Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments; H11
- Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments; EC3 - Re-use of Sites and
Premises; DEV1 - Development Criteria; DEV2 - Good Design; DEV4 - Design and Crime;
T13 - Car Parking
2. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from United Utilities
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the attached letter from the Greater Manchester Police
Architectural Liaison Officer
5. 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.
6. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the amended plans received on 7th July
2004 which show the revised height of the buildings
APPLICATION No:
04/48283/COU
APPLICANT:
Patrick Sheridan
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By River Irwell Trinity Way And Springfield
Lane Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Change of use of vacant land to temporary car park and erection
of fencing and siting of cabin
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a substantial portion of the City Council owned Springfield Lane site.
The site is bounded by Springfield Lane, Trinity Way and the River Irwell and is currently vacant
and overgrown.
It is proposed to provide a temporary 276 space car park for a period of three years to the rear of the
site. The application site does not include the strip of land measuring approximately 30m deep to
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
the frontage with Trinity Way. Access to the car park would be from Springfield Lane via an
existing vehicular access into the site.
The nearest neighbouring dwellings are those on Evans Street approximately 25m from the site at
its closest point.
The car park would not be visible from Trinity Way as the site is currently screened by vegetation
and will in future be screened by advert hoardings and fencing and is also approximately 2.5m
lower than road level.
SITE HISTORY
In December 2002 outline planning permission was granted for a mix of dwellings and offices on
the site (02/44925/DEEM3).
In April 2004 advertisement consent was granted for various advertisement hoardings on the
Trinity Way frontage of the site (04/47940/ADV).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections
Environment Agency – No comments to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 21 May 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 33 Evans Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:Opening times
Highway congestion
Traffic light timings
Dust
Principal of the use
Crime
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
Site specific policies: EC13/9 Sites for Industry and Warehousing
Other policies: CS2 Central Salford, DEV1 Development Criteria
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/5 Sites for New Housing
Other policies: DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principal of the temporary car
parking use is acceptable in this location and whether the use would have a significant detrimental
effect on neighbouring residents.
The principal of the temporary work
Policy CS2 states that the City Council will promote the renewal of the Greengate North area
through a number of measures. These measures include the redevelopment of vacant land, the
retention and improvement of industrial buildings in the Springfield lane area and the
improvement of pedestrian links to and along the river frontage. Policy H9/5 allocates the site for
housing development.
The developer has stated that the use of the land as a car park will result in a number of
improvements. These are stated to be improved security on the site, getting it cleaned up and
getting people to visit it so that they change their minds about the area and can realise how close
the site is to the regional centre.
The site is cleared and therefore the retention of industrial buildings is no longer an issue in
relation to policy EC13/9. The general thrust of policy CS2 is the renewal of the area and I
consider that this application to be part of the first steps along this road. The developer has
indicated that a planning application for the redevelopment of the site will be submitted within the
following twelve months. I consider this to be a reasonable timescale and therefore do not have
any objection to a permission for a period of three years.
The principle of a mix of residential and commercial/employment uses on the site has already been
accepted. I do not consider that in view of the temporary nature of the proposal and the existing
consent for the redevelopment of the entire site that the scheme would be in conflict with policies
CS2 and H9/5.
Effect on neighbouring residents
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications for planning permission. These factors include the relationship to the road network,
the likely scale and type of traffic generation, the potential level of noise nuisance, the effect on
neighbouring properties and the visual appearance of the development. Policy DES7 similarly
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
states that development will not be allowed where it would have an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of others.
The car park would only be in use between the hours of 7.30am and 7.30 pm during the week and
the closest residential curtilage is at least 25m from the closest part of the car park. I am mindful of
the comments of the Director of Environmental Services and am satisfied that there would be no
significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring resident as a result of the proposal.
Other issues
One of the objectors was concerned regarding 24-hour use of the car park. This would not be the
case and I have attached a condition regarding hours of operation.
I have no objections on highway grounds. The nature of the proposed use is such that the car park
would be likely to be used by commuters who would be using roads during rush hour. The
operation of the traffic light controlled junction will be monitored and should it be considered that
alterations are necessary then they will be undertaken but I do not envisage at this point that this
will prove necessary.
It is proposed to hard surface the car park by making use of the existing concrete slabs that exist at
present and new bound gravel. I do not consider that this will generate any significant levels of
dust.
With regard to crime it is proposed that the car park be manned at all times that it is in use. I
consider that this will increase levels of security on site and in the immediate surrounding area.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The developer has held pre-application discussions with officers that have resulted in
improvements to the submitted application.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the main issues are the principle of the use and whether this has any significant
detrimental effect on any neighbour. The principle of mixed use redevelopment of the site has
been accepted and I am satisfied that the proposed development is broadly in compliance with
policies in the development plan. I therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the
following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The car park shall only be used between the hours of 7.30am to 7.30pm Mondays to Fridays,
8.30am to 7.30pm on Saturdays and 9.30am to 6pm on Sundays.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
3. The use hereby permitted shall cease on or before the expiration of a period ending on the 31
July 2007 unless a further permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority.
4. The car park shall not be brought into use until a scheme for junction marking at the site
entrance has been submitted to, agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services and
implemented at the developer's expense.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Reason: The site lies in an area which is to be redeveloped for residential purposes and the
granting of an unlimited planning permission would prejudice the eventual redevelopment of
the site for these purposes in accordance with policy H9 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
DEV1 Development Criteria.
APPLICATION No:
04/48304/FUL
APPLICANT:
George Wimpey (Mcr) Ltd & Valley And Vale Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Land At Middlewood Street/ Oldfield Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one seven storey block comprising 212 apartments
together with 106 car parking spaces, associated landscaping and
creation of new vehicular access
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
15th July 2004
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is located at the junction of Middlewood Street and Oldfield Road. To the south of the site
is the railway line, beyond which is the Regent Road retail park. On the opposite side of Oldfield
Road are a number of commercial properties. The remainder of the surrounding area comprises
industrial uses and cleared and vacant land. The site is located adjacent to the Middlewood Locks
site. Outline planning permission was granted in September 2003 for the redevelopment of that site
for a mix of uses, including residential, a hotel, offices and retail. This site was not included as part
of that outline application. However, given the importance of Middlewood Locks, any
development on this site must complement the regeneration proposals for the wider area.
The application site has been progressively cleared over the years, having previously been part of
an industrial area with a number of buildings covering the site. The site is currently accessed off
Middlewood Street.
The proposed building would have a 116m frontage to Middlewood Street and a 51m frontage to
Oldfield Road. Vehicular access into the site would be achieved from Middlewood Street. A total
of 106 car parking spaces would be provided within the site. Amenity space for the residents
would be provided above the car park at first floor level within an internal courtyard. The building
would be clad in brickwork and concrete masonry, with curved glazed elements at the corners of
the building.
SITE HISTORY
In July 2001, outline planning permission was granted for the erection of 152 apartments together
with associated landscaping, car parking and the construction of a new vehicular access (ref: 00/
41724/OUT). A planning application to renew that permission was submitted in February 2004
(ref: 04/47720/FUL). That application is also being considered at this Panel meeting.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – I have received comments from the Director of
Environmental Services with regards to air quality and there are no objections to the application in
this regard. Conditions requiring site investigations and the implementation of the measures
outlined in the applicant’s noise report are recommended.
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – a number of amendments have been made to the scheme in
order to address the concerns of the Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO). I have received
confirmation from the ALO that the security of the building has been improved as a result of these
amendments. However, the ALO still has concerns relating to the first floor balconies and is of the
opinion that it is not possible to make the scheme secure
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – The GMPTE is supportive of the number of
car parking spaces proposed as this will reduce car use, but does not consider the site to be
particularly well served in respect of public transport. It is recommended that the developer
contributes to the improvement of public transport facilities in the vicinity
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – no comments received to date
Railtrack – no comments received to date
Environment Agency – no objections to the principle of the proposed development recommends
that a landfill gas site investigation and assessment be undertaken to determine whether or not the
site is, or would have the potential to be, affected by subterraneous landfill gas migration from
nearby landfill site(s)
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 17th May 2004
A press notice was published on 27th May 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
52, 54 Oldfield Road
Salford Consortium, 2 Liverpool Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS6 – Middlewood
EC11/6 – Sites for Office Development (Middlewood Street, Blackfriars)
Other policies: H6 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
H11 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/2 – Development in Mixed Use Areas – Chapel Street West
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
Other policies: H8 - Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Developments
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
DES13 – Design Statements
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the
redevelopment of this site for residential purposes is acceptable; whether the proposed design and
layout are appropriate; whether the proposed level of car parking is satisfactory; whether there
would be adequate open space provision; whether the application would make an appropriate
contribution towards environmental improvements within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy
Area; and whether the application accords with the relevant provisions of both the Adopted and
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I will deal with each in turn below.
The Principle of Residential Development
Adopted Policy CS6 states that the redevelopment and improvement of the Middlewood area for a
range of leisure, business and residential uses will be supported. Emphasis will be placed on, inter
alia, securing the redevelopment of vacant land.
Adopted Policy EC11/6 allocates the application site, and the site on the opposite side of
Middlewood Street, for office development. It states that the redevelopment of these sites for
offices will consolidate and improve the surrounding established industrial and commercial area.
Draft Policy MX1/2 highlights Chapel Street West as an area to be developed for a mixture of uses.
Appropriate uses include housing, offices, tourism, leisure, retail and community facilities. In
determining the appropriate mix of uses on individual sites, regard will be had to a number of
factors, including the positive impact of the proposal 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 existing and previous
use of the site and the prominence of the location.
Although the site is allocated for commercial purposes in the Adopted UDP, I am of the opinion
that this allocation has been superseded by recent events, namely the clearance of the area, the
recent approval of an outline application for the redevelopment of the Middlewood Locks site and
the recent approval of an outline application for the redevelopment of this site for residential
purposes. The site has been vacant for a number of years which suggests that there is no demand
for the re-use of the site for offices. I consider that Adopted Policy CS6 and Draft Policy MX1
more accurately set the framework for development in the area. The proposed development
comprises solely of residential units. However, given that the previously approved scheme did not
provide a mix of uses, and in light of the mixture of uses which will be provided within the
Middlewood Locks site, I consider the solely residential use to be acceptable. This proposal would
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
make efficient use of a vacant, unattractive and prominent site in the urban area and I am therefore
of the opinion that the principle of the proposal is acceptable.
Design
Adopted Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard should be had in the
determination of planning applications. Of most relevance to this application are the location of the
proposed development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size and
density of the proposed development, the relationship to the road and public transport networks,
the likely scale of traffic generation, the visual appearance of the development and landscaping
and open space provision.
Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the
Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.
Adopted Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and
property security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors
including the provision of security features.
Draft 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.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
Draft 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.
This development would represent the first phase of the redevelopment of the wider Middlewood
area. It is therefore essential that the proposal provides an architectural style and quality which
reflects the importance of the site’s location and sets a precedent for the standard expected within
the Middlewood Locks site. I am of the opinion that the design of the proposed building is
appropriate to its location at the corner of a major pedestrian and vehicular junction. The glazed
element at this corner provides a focal point and highlights the importance of this junction.
Given that the surrounding area comprises predominantly of vacant and cleared land, it is not
possible to assess the height of the proposed building in relation to adjoining buildings. I am
however of the opinion that the seven storeys proposed would be acceptable in this location and
would be compatible with the redevelopment of Middlewood Locks, which is envisaged to
incorporate predominantly medium-rise buildings.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
The applicant has indicated that the proposed materials would be brickwork and concrete masonry.
The roof would be metal. I am satisfied that the principle of such materials is acceptable. I have
however attached a condition requiring the submission and approval of all materials prior to the
commencement of the development in order to ensure that they are of a suitably high quality and
ensure that the proposed building would make a positive contribution to the area. In light of the
above, I am satisfied that the proposal complies with the relevant criteria of Adopted policies
DEV1 and DEV2 and Draft Policy DES1.
The proposed building would promote a high level of natural surveillance through the location of
windows to main rooms overlooking both Middlewood Street and Oldfield Road. Security to the
proposed building would also be enhanced through the incorporation of appropriate boundary
treatment, particularly along the Oldfield Road frontage where there are apartments on the ground
floor. Details of such boundary treatment have not been submitted with the application. I have
therefore attached a condition requiring such information to be submitted and approved prior to the
commencement of the development. This will ensure that the boundary treatment would be
appropriate in both security and visual terms.
The ALO’s outstanding concern relates to the inclusion of balconies on the first floor on the
Middlewood Street frontage, which would, in his opinion, be vulnerable to security breaches. I do
not however agree with the ALO in this regard. The applicant has undertaken a significant number
of amendments to address the ALO’s concerns and the omission of these balcony areas would
result in fundamental alterations to the design and layout of the building. There would be a high
level of natural surveillance of Middlewood Street due to the positioning of habitable room
windows overlooking the road. This would be enhanced by the numbers of vehicles accessing the
car park, as well as pedestrians accessing the premises on foot. Further, once Middlewood Locks is
redeveloped, the level of natural surveillance would increase due to larger numbers of people in
the area. I am therefore doubtful that the proposed balcony areas would represent a serious security
issue. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with Adopted Policy DEV4 and Draft Policy
DES11.
In accordance with Draft Policy DES13, the applicant has submitted a design statement with the
application. The statement outlines the rationale behind the form and massing of the building, its
siting and the proposed materials. I am therefore satisfied that the level of information provided is
sufficient and am of the opinion that the application accords with this policy.
Car Parking
Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is
provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards.
Draft 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.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
Draft Policy A1 states that planning applications for developments which would give rise to
significant transport implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a transport
assessment and, where appropriate, a travel plan.
A total of 106 car parking spaces would be provided within the site. This equates to 50% of the
total number of apartments proposed. In light of national an regional planning policy and guidance
and Draft UDP policy, which aim to reduce reliance on the private car and encourage the use of
other modes of transport and given the site’s location in close proximity to the City Centre and the
facilities and services therein, I consider the proposed number of car parking spaces to be
appropriate. Cycle storage areas would be provided within the car park. I am therefore of the
opinion that the proposal accords with Draft Policy A10.
In accordance with Draft Policy A1, a transport assessment was submitted with the application. I
can confirm that I consider the information submitted to be acceptable and am satisfied that there
would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on highway safety as a result of this proposal. I am
therefore satisfied that the provisions of Draft Policy A1 have been satisfied.
In terms of the comments received from the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive
(GMPTE), I do not consider it reasonable to require the applicants to make a separate contribution
in addition to the contributions to be made towards open space and environmental improvements
within Chapel Street. The outline application for the Middlewood Locks site was approved subject
to a S106 agreement for a financial contribution towards a range of improvements with Chapel
Street. These include the improvement of public transport accessibility and linkages to the site.
Open Space
Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play within
new housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11 which sets out a sliding scale for
such provision.
Draft Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
Amenity space would be provided within the internal courtyard. In addition, the applicants have
agreed to make a contribution towards the provision of open space in the area. The previous outline
permission for this site related to 152 apartments and under the policies in place when that
application was approved, the applicant was not required to make a financial contribution towards
the provision of open space. In view of this fact, I consider it reasonable to require the applicant to
make a contribution to the provision of open space based on the additional number of bedspaces
proposed by this application, ie. 60 units. The contribution in this regard would therefore be
£77,580. I am satisfied that this complies with Adopted policies H6 and H11.
Environmental Improvements within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
In accordance with the Council’s Development Control Policy Note in relation to developments
within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area, the applicant has agreed to make a financial
contribution towards environmental improvements within Chapel Street. The previously approved
outline application for 152 apartments was subject to a S106 agreement for the payment of
£25,000 in this regard. The applicant has therefore agreed to contribute the £25,000 previously
agreed, plus £60,000 for the additional 60 units proposed by this application on the basis of £1,000
per apartment. I am of the opinion that this sum would be appropriate and in accordance with the
Council’s policies in this regard.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Prior to the submission of this application, discussions were held with the applicant and a number
of amendments were made to the design of the building. Further amendments to the scheme have
since been made in light of comments from the ALO in order to make the building more secure. In
addition, the financial contributions to be made in accordance with the Council’s Open Space SPG
and the Chapel Street Policy Note would add value.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes is
acceptable. I consider the design and siting of the building to be acceptable. The building would
make a positive contribution to the area and would be consistent with the redevelopment of the
wider Middlewood area. The proposed level of car parking is acceptable and the contributions
agreed accord with the Council’s policies relating to open space and Chapel Street regeneration.
The application accords with the relevant provisions of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement UDP. I therefore make the following recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
That Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below once the
legal agreement has been signed:
i.
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a
contribution to the provision of open space and a commuted sum for, and implementation
of, environmental improvements in the local area to the value of £77,580 and £60,000
respectively, plus an additional £25,000 towards environmental improvements;
ii.
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning
permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
iii.
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject
to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal
agreement,
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
iv.
15th July 2004
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the
aim and objectives of policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary
Development Plan or the aim and objectives of the Chapel Street Regeneration Project.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials for
the external elevations and roof of the building shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Director of Development Services. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved
materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Director of Development Services.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such
scheme shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment and shall be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of
development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation
report for the approval of the Director of Development Services. The investigation shall
address the nature, degree and distribution of ground gases on site and shall include an
identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health. The investigation
shall also address the implications on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied
building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental
receptors including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Director of Development
Services prior to the start of the site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial
works contained within the approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to
occupation of the site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Director of Development Services for approval. The Site Completion Report
shall validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those
agreed by the Director of Development Services.
5. For acoustic purposes, the applicant shall incorporate into the building fabric all measures
described and recommended by the Waterman Environmental Report dated April 2004 and
referenced EN4230/R/1.1.6/KA. Specifically the report summarises the acoustic requirements
in Section 3.5 titled Additional Noise Mitigation Measures. These details include particular
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
information for different facades of the building such as specifications for double glazing,
secondary glazing requirements, attenuation required by the building faēade, sealing of
windows, the installation of an acoustically treated ventilation system based upon the
Passivent Assisted Ventilation System BBA Certified (96/3273).
Once installed, all elements of the Waterman Environmental Report shall be retained,
maintained and serviced in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations.
Prior to the first occupation of the site, the applicant shall submit for written approval to the
Director of Development Services a verification report indicating all of the acoustical elements
which have been incorporated into the building's structure in accordance with the Waterman
Environmental Report.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme showing the
provision of waste recycling facilities within the site shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be implemented
prior to first occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved, unless agreed otherwise in
writing by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Reason: In order to encourage waste recycling, in accordance with Policy MW11 of the
Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
CS6 - Middlewood; EC11/6 - Sites for Office Development (Middlewood Street, Blackfriars);
H6 - Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments; H11 - Open Space Provision
within New Housing Developments; DEV1 - Development Criteria; DEV2 - Good Design;
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
DEV4 - Design and Crime; T13 - Car Parking
2. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
3. This permission relates to the amended plans received on 9th June 2004 which show the
location of the vehicular entrance to the site and the refuse collection point
4. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
5. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Section of the
Directorate of Environmental Services on 0161 737 0551.
APPLICATION No:
04/48329/REM
APPLICANT:
Dunham Homes
LOCATION:
Land At 2-12 Crescent Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Reserved matters application for the external appearance of one
ten storey block comprising 224 with commercial units on ground
floor and associated car parking at basement and ground floor
level
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the former Charles Taylor auction house that lies adjacent to
the site of the former Transport and General Workers Union building and to a former adjoining
waste transfer station. The site lies within the Crescent Conservation Area and currently
comprises the office building associated with the auction use and the former single storey waste
transfer building. The auctions rooms and associated storage buildings were destroyed in a fire
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
some time ago. The total site covers an area of just under 0.5hectare. The site is bounded by
Crescent, Gaythorne Street, an unmade road that runs parallel to Oldfield Road and Hulme Street.
Three buildings currently border the site. At the junction of Crescent and Oldfield Road is the site
of the former TGWU building. This building was demolished some time ago and the replacement
six storey building is nearing completion. To the rear on Hulme Street there is the single storey
Hulme Street Nursery, a Council owned building. Adjacent to the site on Crescent is the Black
Horse public house, this is a three storey Victorian property that is not a Listed Building but is on
the Local List of Buildings, Structures and Features of Architectural, Archaeological or Historic
Interest.
Beyond the immediate buildings and roads bordering the site the development would face the river
and Adelphi Street to the north, there is vacant Council owned land to the west, the Henry Sutcliffe
industrial premises to the south and a small row of shops and the Salvation Army premises beyond
Oldfield Road to the east.
This application seeks approval for the external appearance and landscaping of the building only.
The proposed development would comprise a total of ten storeys with additional car parking at
basement level. There would be more car parking at ground floor and office space at ground floor
on the Crescent and Gaythorne Street elevations. Elsewhere there would be flats from first
through to the 10th storey. The building would have flat roofs and be faced in a small palate of
materials as previously agreed with officers and English Heritage. The materials that are proposed
include the following:1. zinc or similar eaves and soffits
2. clear toughened glass to balconies
3. smooth metallic rainscreen cladding to the upper floors
4. dark grey terracotta tiling and ‘red multi’ bricks to the Crescent, Gaythorne Street and
Hulme Street elevations
5. predominantly ‘red multi’ brickwork to all other elevations
6. sandstone to the Crescent, Gaythorne Street and Hulme street elevations at ground floor
and to mark the end walls of the development where it meets the neighbouring buildings
SITE HISTORY
Outline planning permission for 224 apartments with commercial units at ground floor was
granted in July 2003 (03/45865/OUT)
CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage – Do not wish to make any observations.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
13/15, 16 and 1 to 104 The Royal Apartments Crescent
7/19 and Hulme St Nursery Hulme Street
1 to 9 and 15 to 23 Oldfield Road
The Old Pint Pot Adelphi Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV2 Good Design
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: CH5 Works Within Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the external appearance of the
building is of sufficiently high quality in this location.
Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the City Council
is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Policy CH5 states
that development in conservation areas will only be permitted where it would preserve or enhance
the appearance of the conservation area. In determining this regard will be had to the extent to
which the proposal:
 retains or improves features that contribute to the character or appearance of the
conservation area;
 is of a high standard of design, consistent with the design policies of the plan;
 retains existing mature trees
 secures environmental improvements and enhancements; and
 protects and improves important views within, into and out of the conservation area.
The principle of a 10-storey development has already been approved under the outline permission.
The quality of the design is good and the quality of the materials proposed is high. In particular the
use of natural sandstone extensively at ground floor level is of the highest quality. The number of
materials has deliberately been kept to a minimum and the architect has worked closely with
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
officers to ensure that the appearance of the building is of high quality appropriate to the
conservation area and commensurate with the requirements of policy DEV2.
With regard to policy CH5 the development represents an improvement to the appearance of the
conservation area and is of a high standard of design. I am satisfied that the development is in
accordance with the requirements of policy CH5.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
 extensive pre-application discussions regarding the detailed design and use of materials
 the use of natural sandstone at ground floor level
CONCLUSION
The massing, siting and height of the development were all agreed at outline stage and the only
issue here relates to the appearance of the development. The detailed design is of high quality and
the materials proposed are also of the highest quality. I am satisfied that the development is in
accordance with the development plan and will enhance the Crescent Conservation Area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
APPLICATION No:
04/48340/OUT
APPLICANT:
Harrow Estates PLC
LOCATION:
Clariant Works Site Hayes Road Cadishead
PROPOSAL:
Variation of condition 01 on planning permission 03/46638/OUT
to extend time limit for outline planning permission for
residential development.
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
This 7.28 hectare site, which was until recently the site for Clariant Works, is bounded by
Cadishead Park to the north, Hayes Road to the west, the Manchester Ship Canal Company to the
south and the disused railway embankment to the east. The site has been used for chemical
manufacturing and processing with only a handful of tanks and buildings remaining on the site.
Within the site there are small pockets of self-seeded trees as well as a line of conifers along the
boundary with Hayes Road. Existing vehicular access to the site is from Hayes Road.
Cadishead Park consists mainly of open recreation fields with some children’s play facilities and
has a line of mature trees close to the boundary with the Clariant site. Hayes Road consists of both
residential properties and commercial uses. The Ship Canal is to the south and the route of the
previously approved Cadishead Way by-pass phase II runs between the Clariant site and the ship
canal, a landscaping strip is to be provided between the proposed carriageway and the Clariant site.
The site and the area are generally flat however the former railway is elevated above the Clariant
site.
The applicant has explained site remediation will done under a bio-remediation process which has
a timescale of about three years. The applicant has requested five additional years for the
submission of reserved matters given the length of time site remediation will take and the potential
for delay.
As with the previous outline approval all matters are proposed to be reserved. Within the previous
approval the applicant submitted an illustrative layout plan which showed a mix of dwelling types
including apartments, two storey houses and some three storey houses. Open space could be
positioned adjacent to Cadishead Park and the applicant considers there could be access between
the two areas. The applicant again proposes that vehicular access to one third of the units can be
taken from Hayes Road and vehicular access to two thirds of the units be taken from Cadishead
Way. The applicant proposes that vehicular access from Cadishead Way onto Hayes Road would
not be possible except for emergency vehicles.
The information submitted with the previous residential application applies to this application. The
applicant submitted supporting information of a planning statement, a transport assessment, a
noise assessment and an air quality assessment. The planning statement explains the submission,
access, links to the by-pass, site remediation, noise and air quality. The transport assessment
explains the existing vehicular movements along Hayes Road have been approximately 100 tanker
movements per day and 6 – 10 HGV each way per day. Approximately 150 staff visited the site for
work during normal office hours as well which resulted in 44 vehicles, mostly HGV’s, per hour at
peak times. The transport assessment explains that for the proposed residential scheme with one
third of the units having vehicle access from Hayes Road the number of vehicle movements per
hour at peak times would be between 42 – 47. There would be 127 – 141 peak vehicles per hour
from the housing site to the by-pass. The noise assessment explains that some mitigation would be
required to resolve noise disturbance from the proposed by-pass. The air quality assessment
explains that with the by-pass and this residential scheme the Clariant site would result in a slightly
worse air quality however it is explained this is unlikely to exceed Air Quality Objectives.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
SITE HISTORY
In October 2003, outline planning permission was granted (with all matters reserved) for
residential development consisting of 288 residential units (03/46638/OUT). This application had
a standard time limit of three years for submission of reserved matters.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections but recommend that the
applicant consult with the Architectural Liaison Unit prior to the reserved matters stage
Manchester Ship Canal Company – No comments
United Utilities – No objections
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – No objections
The six Councillors of Cadishead and Irlam were also consulted over the application.
The Irlam and Cadishead Community Committee have been consulted but have not commented.
During the last application the Members of the Community Committee agreed in principle to the
provision of housing on Hayes Road, however, there were serious concerns with regard to traffic
management in the area with specific reference to vehicles turning into Hayes Road.
PUBLICITY
Site notices were displayed on the 25th May 2004.
A press notice was also published.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 19 odd Green Lane
2 – 10 even and 8A & 10A Green Lane
1 – 3 Harriet Street
1 – 39 odd Hayes Road
4 – 12 even Hayes Road
26a, 26 – 42 even Hayes Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection/representation in response to the planning application
publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
Other policies: EC3 re-use of sites and premises
H1 Housing Needs, H6 and H11 Open space Provision, EN7 Conservation of Trees and
Woodlands, DEV7 Development of Contaminated Land
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/8 Sites for New Housing/Land at Hayes Road, Cadishead
Other policies: H1 Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision, A2
Cyclists, Pedestrian and the Disabled, EN13 Contaminated Land
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Planning policies have not changed since the previous approval. I have assessed again the
suitability of the proposed residential development with regard to UDP policies and the impact of
extending the time limit for submission of reserved matters.
The site is not allocated within the Adopted UDP and as such is subject to Policy EC3 Re-Use of
Sites and Premises. Policy EC3 allows redevelopment for non-industrial uses where there would
be no resulting material shortfall in the range of sites or premises available for economic
development or where there is a strong case for rationalising land uses. The applicant has
submitted a supporting statement with the application, and it is considered that the site lies within
an area where there are alternative commercial sites available, and that as it is contaminated it
would not be commercially viable for commercial reuse. Policy H1 encourages the development
of new housing. Central government, within PPG3, are encouraging flexibility when identifying
suitable sites for housing, and emerging government policy encourages the reuse of industrial and
commercial land for housing unless a convincing case for retention can be made. It is therefore
considered that the proposed development is consistent with national planning guidance and the
Adopted UDP.
Policy H9/8 of the replacement plan allocates the site for housing development and states that
Cadishead Way will provide very good road access and that some smaller units should be provided
as well as a minimum density of 35 dwellings per hectare. Objections have been received to this
policy however as these objections relate to family housing and impact on Little Hulton, Worsley
and Boothstown I consider that a reasonable amount of weight can be attached to this policy. The
Community Committee supports the principle of housing at the site. Policy H1 of the deposit draft
UDP requires that new housing should contribute to a mix of dwelling types, not less than 30 units
per hectare and appropriate open space. Given the mix of units and the proposed density of 39.5
dwellings per hectare I consider the proposal to be in accordance with policies H9/8 and H1.
I am satisfied that the 288 units can be accommodated on the site to the required density, and the
layout configured to take account of the site constraints. There are trees within the site, which
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
would have to be cut down to allow site remediation. The applicant is willing to provide and
implement a landscaping scheme for the proposed development.
Objection was previously raised if vehicle access could be gained between Hayes Road/Green
Lane and Cadishead Way and the Community Committee expressed concerns over traffic
management and vehicles turning onto Hayes Road. The applicant included within 03/46638/OUT
illustrative details to show how a no through access would be proposed except for emergency
vehicles. The applicant showed that one third of dwellings can have vehicle access to Hayes Road
and Green Lane whilst two thirds can have vehicle access to the by-pass. The transport information
submitted shows that although a similar number of vehicle movements will result along Hayes
Road/Green Lane most of the vehicle movements have previously been from HGV’s. As the two
thirds of traffic can use the by-pass and vehicles using existing roads will be cars I do not consider
that the proposal will have a detrimental impact upon the local road network, I propose a condition
to ensure that this balance is maintained in any future more detailed application. I also consider
that the number of cars leaving and entering the site along Hayes Road/Green Lane would not
cause congestion problems at peak times. I have no other highway objections. I propose a
condition to ensure that details of phasing are submitted which should include details so that the
developer shall not complete more than one third of the dwellings until the by-pass is constructed
and open for public use. I also propose a condition to limit construction and remediation to utilise
the route of the Cadishead Way.
As stated above operations at this site have revolved around the chemical industry and the site is
contaminated. I am satisfied that the site can be reclaimed for residential development in
accordance with DEV7 and EN13. The applicant suggests that bio-remediation will result in fewer
vehicle movements than other forms of remediation. I propose a condition to ensure that the site is
properly cleaned and subject to this condition I have no objections over site contamination. I
appreciate that the remediation of the site may take longer than three years and consider it
appropriate to extend the time for the submission of reserved matters to allow for the cleansing of
the site.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
I have discussed this application with the agent prior to its submission and have ensured the
Cadishead and Irlam Community Committee and local Councillors were consulted on the
application.
CONCLUSION
I consider there are other alternative employment sites within the area and that this site can be
appropriately reclaimed to enable an appropriate use for the locality. I consider the density to be
appropriate. I am satisfied that conditions will ensure that only vehicular access for one third of the
site will be along Hayes Road/Green Lane and that this situation is preferable to the previous
operation with HGV movements. I am also satisfied that the extension of time will allow for the
remediation of the site. I do not consider that planning policies have changed since the last
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
approval. I have no highway objections and recommend approval subject to the conditions listed
below.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of five
years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun not later
than whichever is the later of the following dates:(a) the expiration of seven years from the date of this permission; or
(b) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case of
approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- the layout of the site, including the disposition of buildings and roads and provision for
parking and servicing;
- plans and elevations showing the design of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- the means of access to the site and the buildings;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be
planted, any existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and
trunk positions, lighting, directional signage, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. No residential development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme
for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been submitted for approval to the Director of
Development Services. Such scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with
the approved scheme.
4. No development shall commence until a scheme detailing measures to prohibit vehicles, other
than emergency vehicles, from gaining access between Hayes Road and Cadishead Way has
been submitted for the written approval of the Director of Development Services. The
approved measures shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the first dwelling hereby
approved and shall thereafter be maintained.
5. The reserved matters shall be so designed to ensure that no more than one third of the
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
dwellings hereby approved shall gain vehicle access from Hayes Road. No dwelling shall be
first occupied unless and until the approved access details have been implemented.
6. An area of land within the site shall be laid out as public open space in accordance with policies
H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan. No development shall be started
until details including the location, specification, design and phasing provision of any such
areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. Such areas as may be approved shall thereafter be laid out and made available for use
in accordance with the approved phasing provision, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
7. The reserved matters shall be designed to the miniumum standards of the Secured by Design
Award.
8. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
9. No site remediation shall take place in accordance with a scheme agreed pursuant to condition
08 unless and until vehicle access, construction vehicles a well as vehicles associated with
remediation, to and from the site can be secured from the approved Cadishead Way By Pass
Stage II.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. To ensure satisfactory means of drainage in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the Adopted City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
5. To provide for the safety and users of the highway and to safeguard residential amenity in
accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. To provide for the provision of open space in accordance with policies H6 and H11 of the
Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan in the interests of future occupiers of the
dwellings and residents of the local area in general.
7. Standard Reason R040A Secured from crime
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
9. To safeguard the living conditions of residents on Hayes Road and Green Lane in accordance
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
with policy EN20 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
2. Under the terms of the Water Resouces Act 1991, an Abstraction Licence may be required
from the Environment Agency for the abstraction of water for dust suppression during the
construction phase from any inland or underground strata.
3. If the developer is proposing to use specially constructed works to dewater the site, he must
inform the Environment Agency under section 30 of the Water Resouces Act 1991.
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities.
5. The Director of Development Services (Main Drainage Section) should be consulted regarding
details of drainage.
6. Please note that a separate system of drainage is required for this development.
7. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater
Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit.
8. The reserved matters should be supported by a full arboricultural survey; a PPG24 Noise
Assessment; details of existing and proposed levels and details of bin stores, bicycle and
motorcycle stores.
9. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the three attached memoradum from the
Director of Environmental Services.
10. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EC3 re-use of sites and premises
H1 Housing Needs, H6 and H11 Open space Provision, EN7 Conservation of Trees and
Woodlands, DEV7 Development of Contaminated Land
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H9/8 Sites for New Housing/Land at Hayes Road, Cadishead
Other policies: H1 Provision of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision, A2
Cyclists, Pedestrian and the Disabled, EN13 Contaminated Land
11. 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:
04/48534/FUL
APPLICANT:
Groundwork Manchester, Salford And Trafford
LOCATION:
Land At Heath Avenue/ Orion Place Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Provision of a multi sport facility and erection of boundary
fencing
WARD:
Broughton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing sports pitch within a wider area of open space. The site is
currently surfaced in tarmac with provision for five-a-side football and basket ball court marked
out. The perimeter of the formal sports pitch is currently bounded by 2m high wire mesh fencing.
The fencing is in poor condition. The area outside the pitched is mounded and tree lined.
This application would replace the existing boundary treatment and replace with a more robust
steel mesh fencing. The sides of the fence would be 1m in height stepping up to an overall height
of 3m at each end, to the rear of the goal posts.
The existing surfacing sports provision would remain unchanged.
The wider area is currently under going significant environmental improvements.
CONSULTATIONS
Due to late consultations I have received any response from the following:
The Environment Agency The Police Architectural Liaison Officer 71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
I will report any comments to Panel.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 30th June 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
10 – 20 (e), 86 – 123 (o), 57 – 61 (o) Heath Avenue
1 – 9 (o), 17 – 31 (o) Orion Place
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representation to date in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria, R4 Improvement
of Recreational Land
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
R1 Protection of Recreational Land and Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the type of fencing is
appropriate, and whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of both the Adopted and
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. These issues will be discussed in turn below.
Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to its
surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking.
Policy 4 seeks to improve the appearance of. Access to and use of its parks, play areas, recreation
grounds, allotments and areas of public open space through improved maintenance and
management.
Policy R1 of the replacement plan, seeks to retain and protect existing areas of recreational land
and facilities.
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
The area immediately outside the proposed fencing is mounded and tree lined and currently
provides a significant level of screening. This proposal would improve the existing facilities by
replacing the existing fencing which is currently in a poor state of repair and replace with a robust
steel mesh. The fencing would be 1m in height along the eastern and western sides. It would step
up in height to an overall height of 3m. I have attached a requiring the fencing to be powder
coated. The existing recreational facilities would remain unchanged.
I am of the opinion that the design, style and height of the fencing is supported by the policies and
proposals of the UDP.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the design, style and appearance of the replacement fencing
would improve the visual appearance of what is currently a poor state of repair. The application
would not have a detrimental impact on the upon neighbouring residential properties and would
improve the existing facility, as such I am of the opinion the proposal would comply with the
relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I therefore
recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The fencing hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior
to the commencement of the development by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and
proposals in the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant
material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other
material planning considerations that outweigh this finding:
DEV1 - Development Criteria
R4 - Improvement of Recreational Land
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
APPLICATION No:
04/48575/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs Ebsworth
LOCATION:
3 Rose Acre Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of first floor side extension
WARD:
Boothstown And Ellenbrook
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a detached property located within an open plan estate. The proposal is
to erect a first floor extension above part of the existing side extension, which extends from the
main house to the games room. The existing side extension is linked to the house at an angle
giving the house a ‘boomerang’ shape.
SITE HISTORY
A previous application for the erection of a first floor side extension was submitted in July 2003.
This application was refused by the Panel on the 4th of September 2003 on the basis that “The first
floor side extension would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents living at 1 Rose
Acre by reason of its size and siting and is contrary to Policy DEV8 of the adopted City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES7 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.”
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
72 Edenvale
4, 6 and 8 Averhill
1, 2, 4 and 5 Rose Acre
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
Loss of light/overshadowing
Loss of privacy
Adverse impact upon the street scene and the character of the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact the proposed first floor
extension may have on the street scene and the residential amenity currently enjoyed by
neighbouring residents.
Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the
character and appearance of the street scene. These issues are reiterated in Policy DES7 and
DES8. The proposed first floor extension is well designed so that it is in keeping with the style of
the property. It is also set back at least 13m from the highway. The proposed extension would not
therefore form a discordant feature within the street scene. Consequently, the proposed extension
is in accordance with Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policies
DES7 and DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of
privacy or light, something which is reiterated in DES7 and DES8.
The proposed extension would not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity currently
enjoyed by those at the rear of the site, on Averhill. The proposed extension would not form an
over dominant feature which would overshadow the garden areas of the properties at the rear as it
would be set in at least 5 metres from the rear boundary line. The proposed extension would not
result in these neighbours experiencing a loss of privacy either as separation distances in excess of
the 21 metres required by policy HH1 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on
House Extensions would be maintained between habitable room windows.
The alterations that have been made to the proposed extension, reducing it in size so that it no
longer projects over the games room, serve to ensure that those at number 1 Rose Acre would not
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
experience a reduction in the residential amenity they can reasonably expect to enjoy as the
relationship between the proposed extension and number 1 Rose Acre has been improved. A
16-metre separation distance would be maintained between the habitable room windows contained
in the rear elevation of number 1 Rose Acre and the blank gable end of the proposed extension, 3
metres more than required by policy HH3 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on
House Extensions. Those at number 1 Rose Acre would not therefore experience loss of light in
the habitable room windows contained within the rear elevation of their property. The setting back
of the proposed extension from the boundary with number 1 Rose Acre, in combination with the
partial screening provided by the pitched roof of the existing games room, means that it the
residents of number 1 Rose Acre would not experience overshadowing of their garden area nor
would they be faced by an over-dominant structure.
The proposed first floor extension therefore complies with Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan and policies DES7 and DES8 of the Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Plan.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the siting of the house is such that the proposed first floor extension would not have an
adverse impact upon the street scene or on the amenity enjoyed by the neighbouring residents.
Therefore it is in accordance with policy DEV8 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, policies
DES7 and DES8 of the revised deposit draft replacement plan and the Council’s Supplementary
Planning Guidance on House Extensions. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five 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 Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
Note(s) for Applicant
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
15th July 2004
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. Reason for Granting Planning Permission
This application was determined having regard to Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and the City Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House
Extensions and planning permission has been granted because the proposals accord with that
Policy in that they respect or contribute to the character and amenity of the area and are of a
satisfactory quality of design. There are no other material planning considerations that
outweigh this finding.
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
78
15th July 2004
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
79
15th July 2004