PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
APPLICATION No:
04/47773/FUL
APPLICANT:
Manchester Ship Canal Developments
LOCATION:
Barton Aerodrome Barton Moss Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two-storey reception and administration block, new
hangar with two storey workshop/office accommodation together
with associated car parking
WARD:
Barton
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The Aerodrome is accessed via one road that joins the A57. The site is characterised by a mixture
of buildings three of those being listed structures including the control tower, one hanger and the
original terminal building. There are a number of other buildings and hangers around the site some
of which relate directly to aircraft operations. The control tower and main hanger are in the
applicants ownership whilst the original terminal building is in the ownership of Manchester City
Council.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of one replacement hanger and for the erection of an
administration and training building. The scheme will involve the demolition of three buildings on
site, one an existing hanger, one the existing Lancashire Aero Club facility and one an unused
timber clad building. These buildings are not listed and their demolition would not require
planning permission. The hanger to be demolished has a footprint of 1290sq.m. whilst the
replacement hanger has a footprint of 1440sq.m. plus mezzanine level. The existing aero club
house has a footprint of 380sq.m. whilst the proposed administration and reception building has a
footprint of 950sq.m plus mezzanine level.
The replacement hanger and the proposed administration and training building will be sited
slightly to the south west of their existing positions. The unused timber clad building will not be
replaced. The application has been amended to alter the materials of the proposed building to
include brickwork to match that of the control tower and to move the buildings further away from
the Control Tower. The proposed buildings also include green metal panels for the walls and grey
panels for the roofs. The application now also includes annotation within the training and
administration building to show a bar.
An overspill over car park to compensate for the loss of parking displaced by the replacement
buildings will be provided instead. The additional car parking will utilise an existing vehicular
access point and this part of the site is covered by hardstanding with trees surrounding.
SITE HISTORY
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
In 2004, Listed Building Consent was granted for the siting of a CCTV camera on the Control
tower (04/48531/LBC).
In 1996, planning permission was granted for the establishment of reinforced taxiway tracks and
runway approaches for light aircraft around eastern perimeter of Barton Aerodrome (built upon
existing grass taxiway routes) (96/35126/FUL).
In 1994, planning permission was granted for the re-siting of 4 portacabins for use as briefing
rooms and public visitor information centre and the laying out of an additional 20 car parking
spaces in connection with the aero club (93/32086/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
English Heritage – No objections
20th Century Society – No objections
Coal Authority – No objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 16th March 2004 and has been advertised by press notice.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Barton Moss Secure Unit, Barton Moss Road
Pendlewood, Barton Moss Road
P B & T Builders, Barton Moss Road
Touchwood Joinery, Barton Moss Road
Foxhill Cottage Farm, Liverpool Road
Foxhill Cottage, Liverpool Road
Airport Garage, Liverpool Road
The Bungalow, Liverpool Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 17 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity, including
an objection from Cllr Beryl Howard. The following issues have been raised:The applicant did not discuss the application with the Aero Club prior to submitting the
application,
No replacement facility is proposed for the Aero Club,
The lack of replacement facilities could drive the Aero Club out of existence,
Access for planes from existing hangers will be restricted if these buildings are built,
Hangar capacity will be reduced,
Setting of the Listed buildings will be diminished,
Historic fabric of the aerodrome will be lost,
Safety will suffer and noise pollution will get worse as a result of this proposal,
The visitor centre will be lost to the development,
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
There are other more suitable areas for development rather than this site.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, R1
Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities, R9 Ancillary
Recreation Facilities, SC2 Provision of Social and Community
Facilities by Private and Voluntary Agencies, EN12 Protection and
Enhancement of Listed Buildings
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: A14 Barton Aerodrome
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities, CH4
Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the demolition of the existing
Aero clubhouse is contrary to policies, whether the replacement facilities support the principal
recreational activity and ancillary functions, the impact of the replacement buildings upon the
setting of the Listed buildings, whether alternative sites are more appropriate and an increase in
noise and safety problems.
Policy R1 of the adopted UDP is essentially concerned with protecting land devoted to sporting
activities and related facilities and does not presume against development if it is for formal or
informal recreational or non-commercial purposes related to the recreational use of the land.
Policy R1 of the deposit draft UDP is broadly similar to the adopted policy. I consider that the
primary use of the aerodrome is the actual flying operations that are conducted and the clubhouse
is ancillary to those operations. I consider that the proposed administration block is properly
related to the principal use and that the proposal is not contrary to that policy. The replacement
administration/reception block would also have a larger footprint by 2 ½ times. Policy R9 seeks to
ensure that maximum use can be made of existing recreational facilities by encouraging the
provision of ancillary recreation facilities whilst policy SC2 also seeks to support additional social
and community facilities rather than preventing the loss of existing facilities. I consider that the
proposal will be encouraging the provision of ancillary facilities and the proposal is in accordance
with this policy even though all of the existing facilities are not shown on the submitted
application. It does not follow however that the applicant/developer is restricted from providing all
of the existing facilities within the existing aero club building.
Within the deposit draft UDP policy A14 relates directly to Barton Aerodrome and seeks to retain
and protect the aerodrome for general aviation purposes and states that planning permission will be
granted for development that would improve aviation facilities. Objection has been raised to the
siting of the buildings that would result in access not being possible to the runway from the
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
hangers. The applicant has confirmed that wingspans of the planes at the site are typically less than
12 metres. There is one hanger from where planes would have to taxi past the replacement
buildings. The resultant gap is 15m and consequently I consider there is sufficient room for planes
to manoeuvre. The replacement hanger would have a greater floor area than the existing hanger. I
consider that the proposal will not harm or interfere with general aviation activities at the
aerodrome. I also consider that the proposed reception and administration building could be
argued as being an improvement to aviation facilities and although all of the existing Aero Club
facilities are not identified within the proposed administration/reception block I do not consider
that the proposal is contrary to draft policy A14. As mentioned earlier it does not follow that the
applicant/developer is restricted from providing all of the existing facilities within the existing
aero club building. The proposed 112 parking spaces on site is at an appropriate level to the
services and operations provided at the aerodrome.
The applicant has amended the application to include annotation to indicate a bar/reception area
and also a lounge/training area with windows looking toward the airfield. The applicant and the
Aero Club have confirmed that a meeting has been arranged on the 24th August 2004 between the
applicant and the Aero Club to discuss the clubs future involvement at the aerodrome. I consider
that the facilities and siting of the proposed hanger and administration/reception building are
consistent with the Councils adopted and emerging policies with regard to operations at the
aerodrome and community facilities. I do however consider it important that the applicant note the
concern expressed to the Council over the replacement of all the facilities within the existing
clubhouse.
Turning now to the impact of the replacement buildings on the setting of the Listed Buildings at
the Aerodrome I have consulted with English Heritage and the 20th Century Society over this
matter. Policies EN12 and CH4 seek to preserve the setting of listed buildings whilst policies
DEV1, DEV2 and DES1 seek a good standard of design in developments. I have received
objection, from members of the public and flying clubs, to the loss of the existing buildings and
their historic fabric and to the impact upon the setting of the listed buildings. The buildings to be
demolished are not listed and were not deemed worthy of listing when English Heritage last
surveyed the site last year.
Following amendments to the scheme the replacement hangar and administration building are
proposed to be sited further away from the Listed Control Tower and Main Hangar than the
buildings to be demolished which will increase the space around the listed structures and
consequently will improve the setting. Furthermore the application has been amended to introduce
a matching brick to the control tower on the hangar and also the administration building. The
replacement buildings will also reflect the style and proportions of the larger listed main hangar. I
am satisfied with the siting, size and materials of the replacement buildings and their interaction
with the listed buildings on the site. The proposal does not involve the loss of any trees, as the car
parking is proposed on existing made up ground. I have added a landscaping condition however it
should be noted that any trees would need to be planted appropriately so as not to interfere with
flight paths.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
I do not consider that whether the applicant consults with his tenants or not prior to submitting the
application is a material planning consideration. The applicant and the Aero Club have however
confirmed that a meeting is scheduled for the 24th August to discuss the Aero Clubs future
involvement at the site.
Objection was also raised to the siting of this new development given other available space
between the site and the A57. As discussed above I consider the proposed buildings to be
appropriate with regard to UDP policies.
Objection was also raised to the impact of additional planes and resultant safety and noise
problems. I do not consider that the proposal would necessarily result in an increase in noise
pollution or in safety problems.
Objection has also been raised to the loss of the visitor centre which is currently housed in a
portakabin next to the main car park. The visitor centre has not been included in any of the
applicants proposals and the applicant has confirmed these proposals will not affect other
buildings including the visitor centre.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Following consultation with English Heritage, 20th Century Society and the Greater Manchester
Archaeological Unit the application was amended to improve the impact upon the listed buildings.
The application has also been amended to include a bar within the administration/reception area
and to increase the windows overlooking the airfield from within this area. I have suggested to the
applicant that the visitor centre could be located within the original terminal building, thereby
bringing the listed building a purposeful use, however this vacant listed building is not within the
applicants control at present.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the proposal does not result in the loss of facilities that would contravene adopted or
emerging development plan policy with regard to aircraft activities. I also consider that the
proposed replacement buildings will be appropriately designed and sited with respect to the listed
buildings on site and there will be a resultant improvement in the setting of the listed buildings. I
have no objections to the proposed car parking levels and no highway objections and recommend
approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
2. 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.
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. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
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:
ADOPTED UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities,
R9 Ancillary Recreation Facilities, SC2 Provision of Social and Community Facilities by
Private and Voluntary Agencies, EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
Site specific policies: A14 Barton Aerodrome
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities,
CH4 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
APPLICATION No:
04/48300/OUT
APPLICANT:
Oakglade
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By New Bridge Street The River Irwell And
Greengate Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Renewal of outline planning permission for the erection of 30
storey mixed use development comprising retail units (3010
sq.m), offices (2850 sq.m), 280 residential units, 720 bed hotel and
ancillary leisure units
WARD:
Blackfriars
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an approximately 0.5 hectare site that is bounded to the north east by the
River Irwell, to the north west by New Bridge Street, to the south west by Greengate and to the
south east by the elevated railway. The site is currently used for surface car parking. The area is
generally run down and although some existing industrial premises remain there are very few
active uses, many buildings have been demolished and the major use in the area is surface car
parking.
This application is a renewal of an earlier outline permission that does not expire until November
2004.
The application is for a 30 storey development comprising 280 apartments, a 720 bedroom hotel,
3010sq.m of retail floorspace and 2850sq.m of offices. Parking would be at basement level.
Vehicular access would be from Gorton Street.
SITE HISTORY
Outline planning permission was granted with all matters reserved in November 2001
(00/41272/OUT)
Planning permission was granted to retain the car parking use on the site in December 2002 for a
period of 12 months.
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – Objects to the application on the grounds that the site lies within a high risk
area liable to flood and that the proposed development would be at risk of flooding and could
unacceptably increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. The basement and sub-basement are likely
to be below the anticipated 1 in 100 year flood level and could be at risk of flooding depending on
the design. The Agency then goes on to give advice about the siting of buildings with regard to
access needed to the bank of the river.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – The site is extremely well located in relation
to public transport facilities being within walking distance of Victoria Railway Station and
Metrolink. Furthermore, the use of this site for high density residential development is supported
as it maximises the benefits of the site’s excellent public transport accessibility and access to all
the facilities in the city centre contributes to sustainable development.
Director of Environmental Services – The varied uses on the site in the past indicates that there is a
potential for contamination to exist in the sub-soil areas on site. A full contaminated land
assessment is required. The site is close to Trinity Way, an extremely busy inner ring road and
therefore a full noise survey is also required.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
57 Gravel Lane
89 to 93 Greengate
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC14/2 Improvement Proposals, CS3 Greengate South
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, H6 and
H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, S2 Location
of New Retail Development
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/1 Development in Mixed Use Areas
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES5 Tall Buildings, DES6 Waterside Development,
H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development, S5 Sites for New Retail
Development, DEV6 Incremental Development.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether or not the circumstances have
changed such that a different decision should be made on this application for renewal of outline
planning permission.
Since the original permission was granted two new material considerations have emerged, namely
the deposit draft UDP and the emerging Greengate Masterplan, and these need to be taken into
account when considering whether to renew the existing permission.
Policy Considerations
The site is unallocated in the adopted and draft UDPs, although it is situated within the Greengate
South area to which UDP policies CS3 and EC14/2 apply. Policy CS3 generally encourages the
improvement of the Greengate South area through a variety of measures including the retention
and improvement of industrial and commercial uses, the rationalisation of the local road network,
improvements to open space and car parking, and the retention and enhancement of certain
buildings and facades. The policy also makes reference to the possible designation of the area as an
Industrial and Commercial Improvement Area, and this general intention is carried forward into
policy EC14/2, which indicates that the City Council will consider plans to maintain, renew and
develop the area with an overall improvement and development framework.
The broad thrust of policies CS3 and EC14/2 is essentially to secure the retention of existing
employment uses and encourage the general improvement of the area. However, the policies do not
preclude selective demolition a redevelopment for employment and related purposes, and given
that the proposed development will provide a significant element of office provision, as well as
other employment opportunities in the retail, leisure and hotel elements of the scheme, I would
consider this application to be broadly acceptable when viewed against these two policies.
Draft UDP Policy ST7 supports mixed use development in the Chapel Street regeneration area,
whilst more specifically the site lies within the Chapel Street East mixed use area (policy MX1/1).
The policy states a range of uses including housing, hotels, offices and retail facilities (where
consistent with the retail and leisure policies of the Plan) will be appropriate. However, regard has
to be paid to the positive impact the development could have on the regeneration of the area and the
extent to which the proposed development would support the objective of maintaining a mix and
balance of uses throughout the mixed use areas. I consider that the scheme would constitute an
acceptable mix of uses, help contribute to the regeneration of Greengate and the wider Central
Salford area, and so therefore be acceptable in principle. Additionally the site is within the Chapel
Street Regeneration area, and the proposal for a mixed-use development is in accordance with the
strategy.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
Policy S2 of the adopted and draft UDP normally requires all new retail provision to be located in
or immediately adjacent to existing shopping centres, unless it is to meet purely local needs. In
this instance, the site lies within the Regional Centre, and close to main shopping thoroughfares
and recent/proposed retail developments. I would therefore consider the retail element of the
development to be broadly acceptable in principle.
Policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP lists a number of factors that the City Council will have regard to
in the determination of planning applications. Detailed consideration is required of issues such as
density, the relationship of the surrounding area, and visual appearance, as well as numerous other
factors. Policy DEV2 also promotes good design, whilst requiring developments to pay due regard
to existing buildings and townscpae, and the character of the surrounding area.
Policy DES5 of the draft UDP applies to all buildings and other structures that are significantly
higher than surrounding buildings, or which could have a significant impact on their surroundings
by virtue of their height. The proposed development would be significantly higher than its current
surroundings, and so it would need to be carefully designed to ensure that any negative impacts are
minimised. However, this application is in outline and design is a matter for a reserved matters
application. I do consider though that the design of such a tall building will have to be of the very
highest quality in order for it to comply with policy DES5.
The Development Control Policy Note ‘The use of planning obligations in the Chapel Street area’
should be applied to this development. This Policy Note states that it is the Council’s policy to use
planning obligations within the Chapel Street Area “to ensure that developers contribute to the
provision of infrastructure, services, facilities and maintenance required in association with their
development”. This may take the form of a service provided directly by the developer or a
financial sum paid to the Council.
In this instance a financial sum payable to the Council is appropriate. As a broad guide, in the year
2000/2001, the impact of a typical residential development is considered to equate to around
£1000/unit, that of a hotel to about £500/bedroom, and an office development to approximately
£10/m2. A financial contribution of £668,500 will be required in respect of this scheme for
environmental improvements in the Chapel Street area.
In addition to paying a sum under policy in the Chapel Street
Development Control Policy Note, the developer is also required to
meet the requirements of the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance
on the Provision of Open Space and Recreational Spaces associated
with New Residential Development (SPG7). Paragraph 2.15 of the SPG
confirms that Policy H6 will apply to the renewal of existing
residential
planning
permissions
if
the
policy
was
not
satisfactorily agreed originally.
The SPG was fully adopted by the Council on 18 February 2004, following a 6 week public
consultation period, which involved developers, house builders, and planning consultants, as well
as local community and other interest groups. The policy of applying the requirement in addition
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
to the Chapel Street Obligation was not raised as an objection during the preparation or adoption of
the SPG, nor was paragraph 2.15 (Other Circumstances).
This application is for outline only, therefore it is not possible
to calculate the actual open space requirement associated with this
development, at this stage. However, it is still important to attach
a condition to an outline permission, requiring the details of the
open space provision and future maintenance to be agreed in line with
the provisions of SPG7, or to secure s106 agreement for the open
space requirement. The proposed s106 agreement would be required
at Reserved Matters stage.
Greengate Masterplan
The application needs to have due regard to the emerging Greengate
Masterplan which is currently being finalised through a partnership
between Salford City Council, Network Rail, and Ask Property
Development. The Masterplan is not yet adopted as a statutory
document, therefore although it is a material consideration in
determining this application, I do not consider that it can be
accorded significant weight.
Policy DEV6 of the draft plan outlines policy for Incremental
Development. It states that on sites within or immediately adjacent
to an area identified for major development, planning permission will
not be granted for development that would unacceptably hamper or
reduce the development options for that wider area.
The
justification also explains that ‘in some circumstances it may be
appropriate for development to be resisted until a masterplan has
been produced for the wider site.’
I consider that in the context of the masterplan there are concerns
about the visual impact of the scheme, and also that the proposed
development is much taller than anything else proposed in the
masterplanning exercise. The scheme as it is currently proposed does
not fit well with the wider plans for the Greengate area, however,
advice from Counsel indicates that as the application is for a renewal
of permission and that he previous permission preceded the
masterplanning exercise, it would not be reasonable to withhold
planning consent for the scheme. The scheme would not conflict with
the broad aims of DEV6.
Other Issues
With regard to the comments of the Environment Agency I note that
they do state that flooding depends on design. As this application
is for the renewal of an outline permission that has all matters
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
reserved I consider that the important issue of flooding can be
addressed at reserved matters stage.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
£668,500 required as a result of the Chapel Street contribution requirements
additional monies required as a result of the SPG7 for Open Space Provison.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the proposed development is in accordance with the sequential approach to
development in RPG and the draft UDP, and is broadly consistent with policies in the adopted and
draft UDP’s. Additionally the site already benefits from outline planning permission (which this
application seeks to renew) therefore its development is considered to be acceptable in principle.
While there are now concerns with the future design of the development, especially in relation to
the development of the masterplanning exercise for Greengate as a result of the new deposit draft
UDP policies DES5 and DES6, these are matters that should be properly addressed at reserved
matters stage.
RECOMMENDATION:
If Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below and the legal
agreement, the Deputy Prime Minister will have to be consulted under the terms of the Town and
Country Planning (Shopping Development) (England and Wales) (No. 2) Directive 1993.
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
commuted sum for, and implementation of, environmental improvements in the local area
to the value of £668,500;
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 the Chapel Street Regeneration Project.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
3. Any Reserved Matters application for siting shall include provision for a riverside walkway
along the River Irwell. The approved proposals shall be implmented prior to the first
occupation of the development..
4. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
5. Prior to the commencement of the development full details of the widening of Gorton Street to
a minimum carriageway width of 5.5m with 1.8m wide footpaths shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The development shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved road widening scheme prior to the first
occupation or bringing into use of any part of the development unless otherwise agreed in
writing by the Director of Development Services.
6. Prior to the commencement of development a noise and vibration assessment shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such report
shall address the impact of background noise and vibration, generated from both the
surrounding road and rail networks and frominternal plant and equipment or other potentially
noisy activities within the building, on residents of the development and shall detail measures
to be taken to mitigate possible disturbance. Regard should be taken to PPG24, BS4142 and
BS8233 for the purposes of establishing acceptable internal levels of noise. Recommendations
and remedial works contained within the approved report shall be implemented prior to the
occupation of any residential accommodation.
7. No development shall commence until details of open space provision in accordance with
policies H6 and H11 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such details as are approved
shall be implemented in full , should provision be on-site or, if off-site, via the payment of a
commuted sum according to an agreed time table prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
8. Any reserved matters application for the siting of development shall be accompanied by a
Flood Risk Assessment. The recommendations of any proposed migigation measures shall be
incorporated into the siting and design of the development and shall be implemented prior to
first occupation of the development.
9. The scheme hereby approved relates to the construction of the following uses: Class A1 retails
units (3010 square metres), B1 offices (2850 square metres), 280 residential units a 720 bed
hotel and ancillary leisure units.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. To protect the interests and safety of traffic on Gorton Street and greengate in accordance with
policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. To safeguard the amenity of future residents against the possibility of flood risk from the River
Irwell in accordance with Policy DEV 11 of the City of Salford adopted Unitary Development
Plan and Policy EN16 of the deposit draft City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
9. To ensure a satisfactory relationship with surrounding uses in accordance with policy DEV1
of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
3. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
4. The 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
EC14/2 Improvement Proposals
CS3 Greengate South
H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments
S2 Location of New Retail Development
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
APPLICATION No:
04/48651/FUL
APPLICANT:
Valley And Vale Properties Ltd
LOCATION:
Land At Middlewood Street/ Oldfield Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Re-alignment of road network and formation of access spurs
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site comprises sections of Middlewood Street, Liverpool Road, Oldfield Road,
East Ordsall Lane, Wilburn Street and Hampson Street. To the south of Middlewood Street is
vacant land which was previously occupied by industrial buildings. Planning permission has
recently been granted for the redevelopment of that site for residential accommodation. There are a
number of commercial units along the west side of Oldfield Road. To the north of Middlewood
Street and extending from Oldfield Road to the west, East Ordsall Lane to the east and the railway
line to the north is the site known as Middlewood Locks for which outline planning permission
was granted in December 2003 for a mixture of uses, including residential, commercial and retail.
To the east of East Ordsall Lane is the Mancentral Trading Estate. An application for the
restoration of a section of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal from the River Irwell in the east
to Oldfield Road in the west has recently been submitted. This application would allow the
restored Canal to run under part of East Ordsall Lane.
The access spurs proposed as part of this application would provide access into the Middlewood
Locks site. Two new access points would be created from Middlewood Street. Two additional
access spurs from East Ordsall Lane would also be created to form a crossroads. The existing
roundabout at the junction of East Ordsall Lane, Middlewood Street and Wilburn Street would be
replaced by a signal controlled junction. The eastern section of Middlewood Street and the
southern section of East Ordsall Lane would be widened in order to accommodate the proposed
junction.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received to date
Environment Agency – no objections
United Utilities – no comments received to date
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
Railtrack – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – no comments received to date
Manchester Bolton and Bury Canal Society – no objections
British Waterways – no objections to the principle of the proposed development, but advises the
applicant to liaise with British Waterways’ engineers given the proximity of the site to the line of
the former Manchester Bolton and Bury Canal
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 8th July 2004
A press notice was published on 8th July 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Units A, B, C, D Mancentral Trading Estate, East Ordsall Lane
1, 2 Liverpool Street
2, 6, 52, Winsor Garage, Manchester and Cheshire Construction, Oldfield Road
National Car Parks
Granada Television, Quay Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:
The proposal would result in an increase in noise and vibration due to an increase in traffic
The proposal would affect access into adjacent premises
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS6 – Middlewood
Other policies: T2 - Network of Major Roads of More Than Local Importance
T3 – Highways
T10 – Pedestrians
T11 – Cycling
EN27 – Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/2 – Development in Mixed Use Areas – Chapel Street West
Policy CH9 – Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal
Other policies: A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network
DES6 – Waterside Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main planning issues relating to this application to be as follows: whether the
principle of the proposed highway works is acceptable; whether the proposal would take the
requirements of pedestrians and cyclists into account; whether there would be an impact on the
proposed restoration of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal; and whether the proposal
complies with the provisions of the relevant policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement UDPs. Each of the above issues will be discussed in turn below.
The Principle of the Proposed Development
Policy CS6 of the Adopted UDP 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.
Policy MX1/2 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP highlights Chapel Street West as an
area to be developed for a mixture of uses. Appropriate uses include housing, offices, tourism,
leisure, retail, community facilities and essential infrastructure and support facilities.
Adopted Policy T2 identifies the A5066 - Ordsall Lane/Oldfield Road/Adelphi Street, the B5225 Hampson Street/Princes Bridge and the B5461 - East Ordsall Lane as roads of more than local
importance, which are those roads which carry the highest volume of traffic within the city. It
states that the network of such roads will be protected and that proposals likely to have a materially
harmful impact on the network's ability to accommodate appropriate traffic flows will only be
permitted if they include measures to deal with that impact.
Adopted Policy T3 states that Council will maintain that part of the road network for which it is
responsible and will promote road improvement and traffic management schemes which, inter
alia, contribute towards urban regeneration and improve access to development sites and major
industrial, commercial and shopping facilities.
Draft Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact on highway safety by virtue of traffic generation or access, have an unacceptable impact on
the ability of the Strategic Route Network to accommodate appropriate traffic flows or cause an
unacceptable restriction to the movement of high, wide, long or heavy vehicles along Abnormal
Load Routes. The A5066 Ordsall Lane, Oldfield Road, Adelphi Street is identified as forming part
of the Strategic Route Network.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
The proposed highway works are required for the redevelopment of the Middlewood Locks site.
The application will ensure that the various parcels of land within the site could be accessed. I have
no objections to the proposed locations of the access spurs and consider that, once complete, the
works proposed would not detrimentally affect the highway network or highway safety. I am of the
opinion that, due to this application’s links to the redevelopment of the Middlewood Locks site,
this proposal would contribute towards regeneration and would improve access to the site. On the
above basis, I am of the opinion that the proposed development accords with the above policies
and I have no objections to the application in this regard.
Pedestrians and Cyclists
Adopted Policy T10 states that the needs of pedestrians throughout the city are given greater
attention by, inter alia, taking account of the needs of pedestrians and the presence of existing
public rights of way in the design of highway maintenance, traffic management and road
improvement schemes and by promoting schemes which improve pedestrian safety.
Adopted Policy T11 states that the City Council will adopt a Cycling Strategy which will identify
and implement a continuous network of safe cycle routes between neighbourhoods and other areas
of activity protect the safety of cyclists and adequately reflect their needs in the planning of
highway and traffic management schemes and new developments.
Draft Policy A2 states that road improvement schemes and traffic management measures will be
required to make adequate provision for safe and convenient access by the disabled, other people
with limited or impaired mobility, pedestrians and cyclists. It states that such groups will also be
catered for by the promotion of specific highway improvement and traffic management measures
which increase safety for and afford greater priority to the disabled, other people with limited or
impaired mobility, pedestrians and cyclists and the identification, protection and improvement of
networks of key disabled, pedestrian and cycling routes.
The proposed highway works include dedicated cycle lanes on Middlewood Street, Oldfield Road,
Middlewood Street, East Ordsall Lane and Hampson Street. These would link into the existing
cycle network. I am therefore satisfied that this application would make appropriate provision for
cyclists and would in turn encourage the use of this mode of transport. Footpaths would be
provided on both sides of all the roads included within this application. I am therefore of the
opinion that the application makes adequate provision for cyclists and pedestrians in accordance
with the above policies.
The Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal
Adopted Policy EN27 states that the Council will improve the appearance and develop the
recreational potential of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal. The line of the Canal will be
preserved wherever this is technically feasible and is acceptable when balanced against other
policies and proposals of the Unitary Development Plan. Consideration will also be given to the
development of a landscaped walkway based as closely as possible on the original line of the canal.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
Draft Policy CH9 states that planning permission will be granted for the restoration of the
Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal, and its line will be protected. Development which would
prejudice the reinstatement of the Canal and its towpath will not be permitted.
Major development adjacent to the Canal will be required to make an appropriate contribution to
its restoration.
Draft Policy DES6 states that all new development adjacent to the Manchester, Bolton and Bury
Canal will be required to facilitate pedestrian access to, along and, where appropriate, across the
waterway by the provision of: a safe, attractive and overlooked waterside walkway, accessible to
all and at all times of the day, where this is compatible with the commercial role of the waterway;
and pedestrian links between the waterside walkway and other key pedestrian routes.
The restoration of the Canal is a fundamental part of the redevelopment of Middlewood Locks.
Throughout the preparation of this application, the applicant has liaised with British Waterways in
order to ensure that the proposed highway works would not prejudice the restoration of the Canal.
The proposed highway works include alterations to East Ordsall Lane in order to ensure that once
restored, the Canal would be able to pass underneath the road. I am of the opinion that this
application would not prejudice the restoration of the Canal and I therefore have no objections to
the application in this regard.
Other Issues
The objector is concerned that the application would result in an increase in noise and vibration,
both during construction and after, as the proposal may result in an increase in traffic in the area.
Some level of noise and vibration is an inevitable part of development and is temporary in nature.
The objector currently occupies a unit which is in the ownership of the applicant. The applicant has
confirmed that its tenants will be vacating the premises in question prior to development
commencing on the section of highway closest to those premises. I am therefore of the opinion that
the objector would not be detrimentally affected by the proposal.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the proposed development is acceptable. I have no
objections to the locations of the proposed access spurs, the widening of the roads and the
proposed junction improvements. The application would assist in the redevelopment of the
Middlewood Locks site through enabling appropriate access points into the site to be created. The
scheme would therefore contribute to the regeneration of the surrounding area. I am satisfied that
the scheme would meet the needs of cyclists and pedestrians and would not be detrimental to
highway safety. The application would not prejudice the restoration of the Manchester, Bolton and
Bury Canal. I am of the opinion that the application accords with the provisions of the relevant
policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I therefore
recommend approval.
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The 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; T2 - Network of Major Roads of More Than Local Importance; T3 Highways; T10 - Pedestrians; T11 - Cycling; EN27 - Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal
APPLICATION No:
04/48746/FUL
APPLICANT:
Moylan Homes
LOCATION:
Site A, Land On Fereday Street Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one part three/part four storey building comprising
11 flats together with associated car parking and construction of
new vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden North
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is a vacant, grassed piece of land. Part of the site is however currently
surrounded by temporary fencing and is being used for the storage of building materials. The site is
bounded by Brackley Street to the north, Fereday Street to the west, and residential properties to
the east. On the opposite side of both Fereday Street and Brackley Street are residential properties,
including some three storey properties at Wesley Court on Brackley Street. The land to the south
of the application site is also vacant. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in
character. The site is located in close proximity to Walkden Town Centre.
It is proposed to erect a part three/part four storey building comprising eleven flats, with associated
car parking and the construction of a new vehicular access into the site from Fereday Street. The
three storey element of the proposed building would be to the east, closest to the properties on
Bolton Road, whilst the four storey element would be to the west towards Fereday Street. It is
proposed to provide a total of twelve car parking spaces within the site in a parking area to the
south of the proposed building. This application is an amendment to an outline application which
was approved in April 2003. The amendments proposed by this application include the addition of
some full-length windows to the western elevation, the omission of windows to part of the
southern elevation and the addition of kitchen and landing windows to the east elevation. There are
only relatively minor changes to the siting of the proposed building.
SITE HISTORY
In January 2004 an outline application for the redevelopment of this site and land to the south for
residential purposes comprising a total of 34 apartments with associated car parking and
construction of new vehicular access was submitted. That application is yet to be determined as I
am awaiting amended plans from the applicant (ref: 04/47562/OUT)
In April 2003 an outline application for the erection of a part three/part four storey building
comprising 11 apartments with associated car parking and new vehicular access was approved
(ref: 03/45707/OUT)
In October 2002, an outline application for the erection of two buildings comprising 24 flats
together with associated car parking and new vehicular access was refused (ref: 02/44545/OUT).
In June 2002, an outline application for two blocks of three storey flats comprising a total of 28
flats was submitted and subsequently withdrawn in July 2002 (ref: 02/43905/OUT).
In April 2001, an outline application for nine dwellings including 3 three storey properties fronting
Brackley Street, together with car parking and access was approved (ref: 01/41728/OUT).
In November 1999, an outline application for eleven dwellings, associated car parking and
alteration to the existing access was submitted and subsequently withdrawn in December 1999
(ref: 99/39190/OUT)
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received to date
United Utilities – no objections
Environment Agency – no objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was posted on 29th July 2004
A press notice was published on 22nd July 2004
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
173-213 (O) Bolton Road
31-41 (O) Brackley Street
2-30 (E) Dagmar Street
25-31 (O) Fereday Street
1-14 Wesley Court, Mountain Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received of one letter of objection and a petition signed by twenty eight residents in
response to the application publicity. The main issues identified as follows:
The proposed building would be too close to existing properties and there would therefore
be overlooking and loss of privacy
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the 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; 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 the Proposed Development
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.
Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.
Adopted Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria against which applications are assessed. Of
most relevance to this application are the location and nature of the proposed development,
including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses.
In light of the recent approval for residential development on this site, I am of the opinion that the
principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes has already been established.
The proposal would result in the re-use of what is a currently a vacant and unattractive site and
would result in visual improvements to the area. The site is located in a predominantly residential
area in close proximity to Walkden Town Centre and the proposal would make efficient use of a
previously developed site in the urban area. I consider that the application accords with the above
policies and I have no objections to the application in this regard.
Design
Adopted Policy DEV2 relates to good design and states that when granting permission, the
Council must be satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development.
Developments should have regard to the character of the surrounding area.
Draft Policy DES1 requires development to respond to its physical context. It states that where
there is no discernable or well-developed local character or distinctiveness, developments are
required to adopt high standards of design which ensure that the proposed development is
appropriate to the nature, setting, culture and community of the local area.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
This application proposes a design which is very similar to that recently approved. I therefore
consider that, in principle, the design of the building is acceptable. The main changes to the
proposed building include the introduction of full-length windows to the lounges on the western
elevation, the removal of a number of windows from the southern elevation and the addition of
windows to the southern elevation. I have no objections to these amendments in design terms I am
of the opinion that the proposed full length windows and guard rails would add interest to the
appearance of the proposed building. I have attached a condition requiring the submission and
approval of materials and am satisfied that this will ensure that they are of a suitably high quality
and in keeping with the building’s surroundings.
The recently approved application also proposed a part three/part four storey building. I am
therefore satisfied that the principle a building of this height has already been established. I do not
consider that a part three/part four storey building would be unduly prominent in the streetscape.
The properties at Wesley Court are three storey and I am therefore of the opinion that this proposal
would not be out of context with the surrounding area. Variations in the heights of buildings are
acceptable within urban areas, adding interest and variety to the streetscape.
I consider the design of the proposed building to be acceptable and that the application accords
with Adopted Policy DEV2 and Draft Policy DES1.
Impact on Amenity
Adopted Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria against which applications are assessed. Of
most relevance to this application are the location and nature of the proposed development,
including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size and density of the proposed
development and the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties.
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.
This application proposes only minor amendments to the siting of the proposed building from that
recently approved. The building would be a minimum of 16m from the rears of the properties on
Bolton Road, 14m from the gable of 31 Brackley Street and 22m from Wesley Court. There would
be no habitable room windows on the elevation facing the properties on Bolton Road, although
there would be landing, kitchen and bathroom windows. The objectors are concerned that, given
the number of windows on this elevation and the proximity of the proposed building to the rears of
the properties on Bolton Road, there would be a loss of privacy and overlooking. They claim that
there should be a minimum of 24m between the proposed building and the existing residential
properties. However, as the windows on this elevation would be non-habitable, there is no
requirement for the proposed building to be sited a minimum of 24m from the properties on Bolton
Road as the issues with overlooking associated with facing habitable room windows do not apply
to non-habitable room windows. I am satisfied that those residents would not experience a loss of
privacy as a result of this proposal. The proposed building would be in excess of 21m from Wesley
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
Court and I am therefore of the opinion that neither existing nor future residents would be
detrimentally affected as a result of loss of privacy or overlooking. There are no habitable room
windows in the gable elevation of 31 Brackley Street and I therefore consider that the distance
between the proposed building and No. 31 is acceptable.
The proposal has been formulated to reduce the impact on neighbouring residents by siting the
three storey element closest to the properties on Bolton Road and the four storey element towards
Fereday Street. The height to the ridge of the proposed building would be 11.3m for the three
storey element and 13.8m for the four storey element. However, the ground level adjacent to
Brackley Street would be 1m below the footpath level and the height of the proposed building from
the street level to the ridge would therefore be reduced by 1m.
In light of the above, I am satisfied that there would be no detrimental impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents as a result of this proposal. I consider that the application accords with the
above policies.
Car Parking
Adopted Policy T13 requires the provision of adequate and appropriate car parking to meet the
needs of new development.
Draft Policy A10 of the First Deposit UDP states that developments should not exceed the
maximum car parking standards set out in Appendix 3 of the UDP.
The recently approved application included the provision of twelve car parking spaces within the
site for the eleven apartments. This aspect of the proposal remains unaltered. Given the site’s
location in close proximity to Walkden Town Centre and the facilities and services therein, as well
as the site’s proximity to public transport links, I am satisfied that the proposed level of car parking
is satisfactory. I consider that the proposed number of spaces accords with Policy A10 of the
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential
purposes is acceptable. I consider the design of the proposed building to be appropriate and am
satisfied that the application would not result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity
of neighbouring residents. Given the site’s location in close proximity to Walkden Town Centre
and public transport links, I consider the proposed level of car parking to be acceptable. I consider
that the application accords with the provisions of the relevant policies of both the Adopted and
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
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. 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.
4. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the means of vehicular
access from Fereday Street has been constructed and laid out in accordance with the approved
plans.
5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme showing the
provision of a refuse storage area and 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.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for cycle storage
within the curtilage of 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 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. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
5. Reason: In order to encourage waste recycling, in accordance with Policy MW11 of the
Adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
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 proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
3. 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:
H1 - Meeting Housing Needs; DEV1 - Development Criteria; DEV2 - Good Design; T13 Car Parking
APPLICATION No:
04/48780/FUL
APPLICANT:
Russells Ltd
LOCATION:
30 Upper Park Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing house and erection of a new detached
dwelling and detached garage with construction of a new
vehicular access and associated landscaping (re-submission of
planning application 04/47522/FUL)
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
This application relates to an existing residential property in a residential area. The property is at
present a bungalow and this proposal would replace the existing dwelling and replace with a two
storey property including accommodation in the roof space. The existing access to the site would
be replaced with a new driveway located within the centre of the Upper Park Road frontage. A
detached double garage would also be provided within front garden area.
There is a 1.3m change in levels between this site and the neighbouring property. The site has a
number of mature and semi mature trees within the curtilage and adjoining the site. Those trees
within the front garden areas of the site and the neighbouring property are afforded the protection
of a preservation order (TPO No.4). The trees located along the common boundary are situated
within the lower garden level of the neighbouring property. A row of single storey garages forms
a large part of the western boundary. To the west of the garages is Cadogan Place, which
comprises of nine residential properties.
The footprint of the existing bungalow is similar in size to that proposed in this instance, although
the proposal would include a conservatory on the rear elevation.
The main elevation of the proposal would be set back from the building line of the neighbouring
property although the element closest to that neighbour would be on a similar footing to the
building line. The proposed rear elevation would project 3m from the main rear elevation of the
neighbouring property, 2.5m from the bay window.
The existing bungalow is located on a higher level than the neighbouring two storey dwelling, thus
the ridge height is similar to that of the neighbouring two storey property. The proposed dwelling
would be two storey with bedroom accommodation within the roof space. The highest of the
proposal would be 9.1m in height. The design of the roof would mean that this highest element
would be situated within the centre of the plot. The main front and rear elements of the roof would
be 7.2m high, 1.5m higher than the ridge of the neighbouring two storey dwelling.
The detached garage would be located to the west of the site within the frontage. It would be
similar in height and roof design to those garages adjoining the western boundary.
SITE HISTORY
In March of this year planning permission was refused for a similar proposed for a replacement
two storey dwelling with accommodation within the roof space (04/47522/FUL). The application
was refused under delegated authority, on the following grounds:
“The proposed development would seriously injure the amenity of neighbouring residents by
reason of its size and siting”
“The proposed development would be detrimental to the amenity of
the area by affecting, to an undesirable degree, trees which are
the subject of a Tree Preservation Order No.4 and would therefore
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
be contrary to policy EN7 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan”
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
7 –12 Ravenhurst, Bury Old Road
1 – 9 Cadogan Place, 1 – 16 Ingledene Court, Upper Park Road
26, 28, 13 and 23A Upper Park Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received eight letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Loss of light
Out of keeping with the area
Too high
No difference to that already refused
Disruption during construction
Loss of view
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DEV10 Broughton Park Development Control Policy
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design,
T13 Car Parking, EN7 Conservation of Trees and
Woodlands
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, EN10
Protected Trees, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in
New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the proposal would result in a
loss of light or result in an over bearing impact upon the existing residential properties, whether the
proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the trees which have been afforded the protection
of a preservation order, 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.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
Siting, Massing and Design.
In the case of residential development, policy DEV10 seeks to ensure that due regard is given to
siting, design and height of buildings, design, car parking and the protection of trees.
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.
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.
Policy DES1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP requires developments to respond to
their physical context and to respect the character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent
to which proposals comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including
the relationship to existing buildings and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP 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 majority of the representation received has been from the residents of Cadogan Place and refer
to loss of light. Six of the nine properties on Cadogan Place are located at a right angle to Upper
Park Road, facing towards the proposal. The gable of the proposed development would be 21.2m
from the frontages of those properties on Cadogan Plan. Furthermore, the proposal would be
located to the rear of the existing terrace of single storey garages. The eaves of the proposed roof
would be 1m higher than the ridge line of the terrace of garages. The highest part of the roof would
be a further 5m away (26.2m overall) from the neighbouring properties. As such, I am satisfied
that the proposal, albeit higher that the existing neighbouring properties, would not result in a loss
of light. Moreover, I am also satisfied that the proposal would provide sufficient separation
distance between neighbouring properties in accordance with the Councils minimum separation
distances.
The highest part of the proposal would be 9.1m in height. The design of the roof would mean that
this highest element would be situated within the centre of the plot. The main front and rear
elements of the roof would be 7.2m high, 1.5m higher than the ridge of the neighbouring two
storey dwelling. The relationship of this proposal is not dissimilar, albeit reversed, than the current
relationship between the bungalow and the neighbouring two storey property, in that the height
increase is equivalent to the roof area. As such, I do not consider that the increase is
disproportionate to the neighbouring property.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
Furthermore, members will be aware of similar redevelopment schemes of existing properties in
the area for larger replacement dwellings. I do not consider that the replacement of a bungalow
with a two storey dwelling to be out of character with the area. It should also be noted that there
are a number of flatted developments within this particular part of Upper Park Road which are
higher than two in height and higher than this proposal.
The height of the roof has been reduced by 0.7m and the depth of the house has also been reduced
by a distance of 2m. The driveway has also been relocated away from the TPO’d trees, as such I do
not agree that there is no difference to the refused scheme and that now proposed.
Relationship to TPO’d trees
Policy EN7 seeks to protect and enhance trees and woodlands within the area. Policy EN10 of the
replacement plan is similar in this instance. The City Councils arboricultural officer has inspected
the trees on site and those located within the lower garden area of the neighbouring property. He is
satisfied that the amended scheme would not have any impact upon those trees. Furthermore, the
relationship of the proposal to these trees is similar to that currently experienced by the existing
property.
Turning to the remaining points, loss of view and disruption during construction are not material
planning considerations. I have no highway objection and I am of the opinion that the proposal
accordance with the development plan policies.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Since the previous refusal I have negotiated with the applicants agent to reduce the rear elevation
by 2m, reduce the height of the ridge by 0.7m and to relocate the proposed TPO trees.
CONCLUSION
I consider that this application accords with the development plans policies and that there are no
other material considerations which outweigh this view.
I recommend therefore that for the following reasons the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the walls
and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
2nd September 2004
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works. Property specific summary
information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining activity to affect
the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal Authority Mining Reports
Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied
prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent
renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the
Council.
3. 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:
DEV10 - Broughton Park Development Control Policy; DEV1 Development Criteria; DEV2
Good Design; T13 Car Parking; EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
33
2nd September 2004
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
34
2nd September 2004