PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
APPLICATION No:
03/47510/FUL
APPLICANT:
Panorama Living Limited
LOCATION:
Kersal Hotel 216 Moor Lane Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing public house and erection of two three/four
storey blocks comprising 37 apartments together with associated
carparking and alterations to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the former Kersal Hotel situated at the junction of Moor Lane with
Oaklands Road. The site covers an area of 0.36hectare and is bounded on all sides by residential properties.
The buildings on the site have recently been demolished and the site cleared. The site is flat but falls away
to the rear and also to the front of the site where Moor Lane falls to the west.
It is proposed to erect a total of 37 apartments on the site in two blocks of three and four storeys. A larger
block would run parallel to Oaklands Road. This would be mostly three storey but would rise to four
storeys at the road junction. A smaller three-storey block would be situated on the Moor Lane frontage.
The larger building would be set back some 8m from the boundary with Oaklands Road and a minimum of
5.5m from the Moor Lane road frontage. The smaller block would be set back at least 6m from Moor Lane.
Vehicular access would be from Moor Lane and a total of 43 car parking spaces would be provided to the
rear of the site. The site contains a number of trees that are protected by Tree Preservation Order and the
application has been amended to ensure that these trees are retained. The applicant has submitted a tree
report with the application. The City Council’s arboricultural officer agrees with the findings of the report
that show that six of the protected trees are in poor condition and should be removed and replaced. A total
of seven other trees would also be removed.
The apartment buildings would be faced in brick with render to the second and third floors. They would
have tiled pitched roofs and would have feature brick banding and stone lintels and cills to windows.
CONSULTATIONS
Charlestown and Lower Kersal New Deal for Communities – No objections in principle but have a number
of concerns regarding the height of the blocks and pedestrian movement within the car park.
United Utilities – No objections in principle but provides advice.
Greater Manchester Police – No objections in principle but have a number of concerns regarding detailed
security matters and provide advice.
Environment Agency – No objections in principle.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Coal Authority – No objections
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
137 to 147 and 220 to 226 Moor Lane
1 Heathland Road
2A, 2B and 1 to 21 Oaklands Road
1 to 5 Mesnefield Road
2 to 6 and 1 to 5 Oakmoor Drive
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received nine letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:Loss of trees
The existing hotel is a local landmark and should be retained
Overlooking – the proposed building is too tall
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, EN7 Conservation of Trees and
Woodlands, EN23 Croal-Irwell Valley
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, EN10 Protected Trees.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the proposal is of sufficient quality in
design terms and whether or not it has an unacceptable impact on existing protected trees or on
neighbouring residents.
Design
Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied
with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.
Draft policy DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect the
positive character of the local area in which it is situated and contribute towards local identity and
distinctiveness.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
The application has been amended a number of times as a result of my concerns and this has included
improvements to the design and appearance of the buildings. I am satisfied now that the design and
appearance of the development is acceptable and complies with policies DEV2 and DES1.
Trees
Policy EN7 states that the City Council will encourage the conservation of trees and woodlands.
Draft policy EN10 states that development that will result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to,
protected trees will not be permitted and that where the loss of trees is considered acceptable, adequate
replacement provision will be required.
The proposal has been amended as a result of the concerns of the City Council’s arboricultural officer. The
building has now been pulled away from protected trees on the site that run along the boundary with
Oaklands Road and that run along the rear boundary of the site adjacent to 2A Oaklands Road. The
building is now a minimum of 8m from these trees and the arboricultural officer is satisfied that this
distance is sufficient to ensure that no protected tree is lost as a result of this development.
The applicant has submitted a tree report and this demonstrates that a number of protected trees are in poor
health and should be removed and replaced. The City council’s arboricultural officer agrees with the
findings of the tree report.
Residents have complained that a large ash tree within the existing hotel grounds has been removed. This
tree was not protected and although a good specimen it is not one that the City Council would usually
protect, lying as it did, to the rear of the property away from any main road frontage.
I am satisfied that the development complies with both policy EN7 and EN10 as well as with the City
Council’s supplementary planning guidance on trees.
Effect on Neighbouring Residents
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. Such factors include the effect on neighbours.
Draft policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
The proposals have been amended as a result of my concerns and this has resulted in the development being
set back from both its road frontages. The building would now be over 28m from houses on Moor Lane and
27m from houses on Oaklands Drive where windows face each other.
I am satisfied that these distances are acceptable and that there would be no significant detrimental affect on
any neighbouring resident as a result of this development.
Other Issues
Several residents have commented that the former building was a local landmark. Although this was the
case, the building was not the original building that stood on the site and was not worthy of retention.
The application was submitted prior to the City Council’s requirement for a contribution from apartment
development towards children’s play equipment and informal open space.
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Amended plans have resulted in a number of improvements to the original scheme and a two for one tree
replacement policy will ensure more trees on the site
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues related to whether the proposal is of sufficient quality in design terms and
whether or not it has an unacceptable impact on existing protected trees or on neighbouring residents. The
scheme has been amended a number of times to address each of these points and I am now satisfied that the
development is acceptable and in accordance with the policies of the development plan.
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. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. 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.
5. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
6. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
7. No development shall commence until a scheme of recycling facilities for the apartments has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme as is
approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
8. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme for the apartments has been
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme as is
approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
5. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied prior to
the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent renders all
development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the Council.
2. The applicants attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities.
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
DEV2 Good Design
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
EN23 Croal-Irwell Valley
4. The Development Services Directorate (Highways Section) should be consulted regarding the
construction of a footway crossing, the cost of which will be the responsibility of the developer.
APPLICATION No:
04/47827/COU
APPLICANT:
CCS (Skip Hire) Ltd
LOCATION:
Yard 2, The Oasis, Northbank Industrial Estate, Brinell Drive Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from open storage to skip hire business involving waste
transfer station
WARD:
Cadishead
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
Planning permission is sought for a change of use from open storage to a skip hire business at Yard 2 to the
rear of The Oasis building at Brinell Drive, Northbank Industrial Estate, Irlam. The proposal is to operate a
waste transfer station (WTS) for untreated domestic and commercial waste (not including food waste),
industrial waste and construction industry waste, involving 25000 tonnes of waste per year within the 851m
sq. area of the site. Yard 2 lies to the rear of an open storage site bound by palisade fencing, containing a
storage building called The Oasis. The proposal includes building and engineering operations to erect two
tipping bays, a bulk container, a site building and the storage of skips up to 3 metres in height along the
southwest side of Yard 2. An existing building accommodating a toilet would be maintained under the
proposal, which is sited in the southern corner of the site. The applicant amended the proposal to
accommodate unloading of the skips within a three walled roofed enclosure (23m long by 8m high by 10m
wide) sited within yard 2, details of which are covered by attached conditions. A grab machine (excavator)
is the only proposed plant to be used on site. Adjacent uses are warehousing (TNT) to the northwest, Libra
Chemicals to the southwest, Manchester Investment Castings Ltd. to the northeast and City Site Mix to the
south, which is a concrete mixing and storage yard.
SITE HISTORY
(E/28013)
Use of part of scaffolding yard for concrete distribution at land on Brinell Drive, Irlam: Approved 1991
(E/28505)
Erection of an industrial unit (B2) together with associated car parking at plot 49 Brinell Drive, Irlam:
Approved 1991
A condition is attached to the planning permission for application (E/28505), which states that storage
heights shall not exceed the height of the boundary fence unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections. Recommend an enclosure to be provided for
unloading skips to assist in the containment of potential nuisance and there to be no burning on site.
Northbank Management Company – No comments received
Environment Agency – No objections. Recommend an enclosure to be provided for unloading skips to
assist in the containment of potential nuisance.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – Recommend an enclosure to be provided for unloading skips to
assist in the containment of potential nuisance.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 9th March 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
TNT, Brinell Drive
Libra Chemicals, Brinell Drive
The Oasis, Brinell Drive
Manchester Investment Castings Limited, Brinell Drive
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Omega Engineering Limited, 1 Omega Drive
City Site Mix, Martens Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following issues
have been raised: Nuisance from litter, dust and odour generation
Noise from seagulls and diggers etc.
Application unclear if it is for storing and sorting waste as well as the use of skips
Screening/planting should be provided between the site and the new bypass under construction
Conditions attached to any permission should be strictly enforced
Increased problems with pest control
Fire risk
Water/chemical run off
Out of character with the prestigious nature and use of Northbank Industrial Estate
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
MW11 Waste Recycling and Bulk Reduction
MW15 Development Control – Waste Criteria
DEV1 Development Criteria
T13 Car Parking
EN20 Pollution Control
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
W1 Waste Management
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN14 Pollution Control
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are:
Impact on visual amenity
Impact on pollution of the environment and associated nuisance to neighbouring occupiers
Impact on traffic considerations
Impact on drainage of the site
The relevant policies of the application are:
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Policies MW11 and MW15 support proposals that recycle waste and conserve resources unless residential
amenity is unduly affected or the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on a recreation area. Policy
W1 supports the same principles and aims of the above policies. The proposal to operate a waste transfer
station in this location and to sort material to be recycled is supported in accordance with the above policies.
Policy EN20 of the Adopted UDP and policy EN14 of the Replacement Plan seek to prevent harm to the
environment that may be caused by development proposals. Policies T13 and A10 ensure the provision of
adequate vehicular facilities in developments. Policies DEV1 and DES1 set criteria to protect the amenity
of the area and policies DEV1 and DES7 seek to protect the amenity of neighbouring users and occupiers.
Impact on visual amenity
Yard 2 is bound by palisade fencing to the rear and mesh fencing to the sides and front of the site. The yard
to the front of the site is used for open storage, thus stored materials and the boundary and landscaping
treatment to Brinell Drive provide some screening to the north. The site is set back 75m from Brinell Drive.
The applicant proposes to erect 2.7m high palisade fencing with attached colour treated wooden panels
around the site that would be out of character with the area. An appropriate boundary treatment to screen
the site with tree planting along the rear (southeast) boundary of the site would be secured by attached
condition 2, I consider that the visual amenity of the locality and the Cadishead bypass would be maintained
by the proposal and the visual amenity of the site would be improved. The proposed three walled roofed
enclosure unit would accommodate the storage of waste up to a volume of 828 cubic metres and the
building is conditioned to control its appearance so that the colour and type of facing materials would match
neighbouring industrial units.
Impact on pollution of the environment and associated nuisance to neighbouring occupiers
No conditions restricting hours of use are attached because I consider it would be unreasonable given the
surrounding industrial occupiers have no conditions placed on their hours of use.The potential for nuisance
and pollution from noise, vibration, wind blown litter, dust, vermin, leachate, smoke and odour would be
controlled by conditions as attached below. Screening included in attached condition 2 would assist in
reducing wind blown litter to land outside the site. The proposed enclosure would help to reduce the impact
of the above types of nuisance to neighbouring occupiers and the associated sprinkler system would be
provided within and to the front elevation of the enclosure to damp down dust. These measures would help
to reduce nuisance and pollution to surrounding land, consistent with polices DEV1, EN20, MW11,
MW15, W1, DES7 and EN14.
Impact on traffic considerations
The initial objections relating to traffic issues raised by the extra information submitted by the applicant in
the submitted Working Statement have now been addressed by a site meeting, held on 22nd June 2004. Two
allocated car parking spaces are shown in the submitted site layout (drawing number S1 dated 17th
September 2004) and the size of the proposed turning circle would be sufficient for the vehicles, plant and
equipment associated with the proposed use. I consider that the site could accommodate the necessary
wheel washing facilities. I consider that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the vehicular
requirements of neighbouring occupiers or Yard 2, consistent with policies T13, A10, DEV1, MW11,
MW15, W1 and DES7.
Impact on drainage of the site
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Condition 2 would allow Yard 2 to be resurfaced to a standard suitable for the end use. Following the
submission of the Working Statement, the Environment Agency is satisfied with the proposed drainage
systems for the site, consistent with policies DEV1, MW11, MW15 and W1. Thus the initial drainage issues
raised by the GMGU have been addressed.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Despite written requests for further information and the applicant’s submission of further details and plans,
which have overcome some objections to the proposal, the submitted information and plans have been
inadequate at all stages of the application to enable particulars of the proposal to be adequately assessed.
The applicant has included manufacturers information of cctv cameras and lighting in further submitted
information received at a site meeting held on 22nd June 2004. However the cctv cameras would not require
planning permission because the applicant has confirmed they would be attached to the vehicles operating
at the site and details of the lighting scheme have still not been submitted. Thus Conditions are attached to
this permission to secure the appropriate development of the site, the amenity of the area and the amenity of
neighbouring occupiers.
CONCLUSION
The proposal would contribute to sustainable waste management advocated in policies MW11, MW15 and
W1, which seek to encourage higher recycling rates subject to the protection of the environment, the
amenity of neighbouring occupiers and the compatibility of the site with surrounding land uses. The
Environment Agency advises that the site would be capable of accommodating the quantities of waste
proposed.
The site is situated in an accessible location outside residential areas, thereby achieving minimal impact on
the local population and the environment. The proposal would employ four staff, bring a vacant site within
an industrial estate into beneficial use and is consistent with PPG10, being sited in an ideal location
consistent with polices MW11, MW15 and W1. I have no highway or drainage objections and recommend
approval.
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. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 15th March 2004 which shows drainage
details of the site.
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
4. Within two months of the date of this permission, the developer shall submit a Dust Management Plan
for the written approval of the Director of Development Services. The Dust Management Plan shall
identify all areas of the site and site operations where dust may be generated and further identify control
methods to ensure that dust does not travel beyond the site boundary. Once in place, all identified
measures shall be implemented and maintained at all times. Should any equipment used to control dust
fail, the site shall cease all material handling operations immediately until the dust control equipment
has been repaired or replaced.
5. All equipment on site shall be maintained and serviced as indicated by the equipment manufacturers
recommendations. All equipment shall be given special attention to reducing extraneous noise from
squeaks or rattles. A log of all service, repair and maintenance records shall be kept available for
inspection by any representative of the City Council's Development Control Section or Environmental
Services Directorate at any reasonable time.
6. The use hereby permitted shall not be started until a scheme of sound attenuation to deal with the
internally and externally generated noise within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Director of Development Services. The scheme shall address the potential for any noise nuisance
to occur which may impact upon the amenity of neighbouring noise sensitive premises during the
operational phase of the proposal. The scheme shall identify fully all control measures which are
required to control the impact of the nuisance. All approved measures identified shall be implemented
and retained throughout the duration of any works during the construction phase. All approved
measures for the operational stage shall be retained and maintained thereafter. A verification report
shall be submitted for written approval to the Director of Development Services confirming that all
measures recommended by the noise report have been implemented in full prior to the first occupation
of the site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved particulars prior to the
use first commencing.
7. The applicant shall contact Environmental Services Directorate providing at least 10 working days
notice before allowing any other Screening or Crushing Plant to be installed on site - either of a
temporary or permanent fixture. Any such equipment brought in on a temporary basis shall be shall be
accompanied by a copy of the relevant Authorisation or Permit issued by the Local Authority from
which the equipment normally resides. No such equipment shall be permitted to be operated without
written consent being provided from the Environmental Services Directorate.
8. Temporary wheel wash facilities shall be provided within three months of the date of this permission
and permanent wheel wash facilities shall be provided within twelve months of the date of this
permission in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. Such facilities shall be used every time that a vehicle leaves the site.
9. This permission shall relate to the use of the site hereby approved for the importation, storage, sorting
and recycling of the materials identified in the submitted Working Statement dated 13th May 2004
only.
10. The height of all material stockpile areas and skips, storage bays and containers, subject of this
permission, shall not exceed 3 metres above the ground level of the site at any time.
11. The maximum tonnage of all material stockpile areas, subject of this permission, shall not exceed 2484
tonnes as measured over a period of 1 month at any time.
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
12. Prior to any part of the site first becoming operational, the turning circle and two car parking spaces
shown in drawing number S1 dated 17th September 2004 shall be marked out and hardsurfaced prior to
the first use hereby approved and made available thereafter at all times the premises are in use.
13. There shall be no burning on the site at any time.
14. Litter within the site shall be contained within an appropriate storage container or enclosure and shall
be cleared by 20:00 hours every day that the use is operational.
15. Notwithstanding the submitted details, prior to first operation of the use hereby approved, a lighting
scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such
scheme shall contain details of the colour and type of facing materials, height, design, appearance and
siting of the lighting columns and flood lights and the spread, times and intensity of illumination. Prior
to first operation of the use hereby approved such lighting shall be directed to prevent nuisance to
surrounding properties and such measures and lighting scheme once approved shall be implemented
and maintained thereafter whilst the use is operational.
16. Notwithstanding the submitted details, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services prior to first operation of the use hereby approved to provide details
of the three walled roofed enclosure shown in drawing number S3 dated 17th September 2004 and the
associated sprinkler system. Such scheme shall include full details of the siting, design, appearance,
colour and type of facing materials, dimensions and height of the internal and external sprinkler system
to be provided as part of the three walled roofed enclosure and full details of the colour and type of
facing materials of the three walled roofed enclosure. Such scheme once approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services shall be implemented and maintained thereafter whilst the use
hereby approved is operational.
17. Notwithstanding the submitted details, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services prior to first operation of the use hereby approved to provide details
and plans of the design, appearance, colour and type of facing materials, height, dimensions and
number of the tipping and storage bays, site office, bulk container and the existing toilet building shown
in the submitted site layout dated 17th September 2004. Such scheme once approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services shall be implemented and maintained thereafter whilst the use
hereby approved is operational.
18. The area labelled as a turning circle in the submitted site layout shown in drawing number S1 dated
17th September 2004 shall be used for the turning of vehicles only and once implemented such turning
area shall be maintained free of obstruction at all times the use hereby permitted is operational.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R003 Sketch Layout/Details
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. To ensure that the amenities of nearby occupiers and the character of the locality are not adversely
affected by noise and nuisance in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
6. To ensure that the amenities of nearby occupiers and the character of the locality are not adversely
affected by noise and nuisance in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
7. To ensure that the amenities of nearby occupiers and the character of the locality are not adversely
affected by noise and nuisance in accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. For the avoidance of doubt and to exercise control over the type of materials treated on the site in the
interests of general amenity and public safety in accordance with policies MW11 and MW15 of the City
of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan and policy W1 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
11. For the avoidance of doubt and in accordance with policies MW11 and MW15 of the City of Salford
Adopted Unitary Development Plan and policy W1 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
12. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
13. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
14. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
15. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
16. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
17. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
18. Standard Reason R011A Parking, turning etc within curtilage
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
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
outweigh this finding:
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
MW11 Waste Recycling and Bulk Reduction
MW15 Development Control - Waste Criteria
DEV1 Development Criteria
T13 Car Parking
EN20 Pollution Control
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
W1 Waste Management
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN14 Pollution Control
2. The applicant is advised to contact United Utilities with regard to the yard drainage, which will require
alteration to ensure that run off is intercepted and discharged via an oil interceptor to the foul drainage
system and that a trade effluent consent will be required.
3. This application has been assessed on the basis of the submitted application including part 6 of the
application form.
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.
APPLICATION No:
04/48357/REM
APPLICANT:
City Lofts (Salford Quays) Limited
LOCATION:
Dock 9 The Quays Salford Quays Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of linked 10 and 20 storey block comprising 203 apartments
with A1/A3 commercial use at ground floor level together with
associated car parking and creation of new vehicular access and
landscaping.
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
This site comprises a portion of the larger Dock 9 site between the curved part of the Quays Loop Road and
the NV Countryside buildings. The scheme includes the dockside walkway. The site is bounded by Huron
Basin to the south, across which lie the Digital World Centre and the Lowry, to the east by NV, to the north
by the Quays Loop Road across which is the freshbake food site whilst to the west is the remainder of the
undeveloped Dock 9 site. The site is currently vacant and unused and lies within the larger Dock 9 site that
has outline approval for offices, residential, retail, leisure, hotel and car parking (03/46042/OUT).
Reserved Matters of siting, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping are sought for
203 apartments, 137 car parking spaces and a 147sq.m. retail/café/bar use. The development is proposed in
two main linked blocks one 20 storeys and one 10 storeys. The 10 storey block is 19m from NV and is sited
parallel to the basin whilst the 20 storey block is sited perpendicular. The blocks are faceted and have a
lozenge shape. The elevations are proposed to be finished in a mixture of glazing, timber rainscreen
cladding and render with intersecting aluminium panels.
The single storey retail/café unit is sited to the south west of the site fronting onto Huron Basin. The
proposal includes continuing the Dockside walkway to join the Detroit Bridge with the Lowry alongside the
northern part of the Huron Basin, this would complete the walkway around the Huron and Eerie Basins. The
applicant also proposes to provide a public sculpture adjacent to the dockside walkway.
Pedestrian access would be gained from the dockside walkway or the Quays Road whilst vehicular access is
gained from the Quays Road immediately adjacent to the NV buildings. The application has been submitted
with indicative details of landscaping, a design statement, ground survey, TV reception analysis, travel
plan, noise assessment and illustrative perspectives, with a forward by Terrance Conran.
SITE HISTORY
In 2000, Outline permission was granted for a mixed-use development including 600 residential units
(97/36749/OUT).
In 2003, outline planning permission was granted for a mixed-use development including 600 residential
unit, 90,473sq.m. of office space and 3716sq.m. of leisure space (03/46042/OUT).
In 2003, reserved matters were approved for 153 apartments in a linked development of 10 and 17 storeys
(03/45731/REM).
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No known features of archaeological interest.
Director of Environmental Services – Suggest conditions for noise and contamination.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – No objections.
Environment Agency – No objections subject to the developer agreeing their proposed floor levels with the
Manchester Ship Canal Company who operate the sluices at Mode Wheel Locks in order that the building is
not subject to undesirable risk from flood.
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council – No comments received
United Utilities – No objections subject to the applicant agreeing drainage details with United Utilities and
the Environment Agency. Also require a separate metered supply for each unit and that care should be taken
to ensure safety around high voltage cables and ensure UU access to those cables. The applicant would be
advised to consult UU on all these matters.
PUBLICITY
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
A press notice was published on 27th May 2004
Site notices were displayed on the 20th May 2004
The following neighbours were notified of the application:The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Freshbake Foods, 101 Broadway
901 Imperial Point, Pier 8
Countryside Residential
Orbit Developments
The Lowry Development Company
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:Lowry Development Company – Objected to earlier design and impact upon the skyline. No comments
received on most recent revised scheme. Concerned over submitted TV information not containing
mitigation measures.
The Emerson Group – TV reception as a result of the development and to the retail unit and its impact upon
the viability of the Lowry Designer Outlet Shopping Mall.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC11/1 Sites for Office Development
Other policies: DEV 1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
H6 & H11 Open Space
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/3 Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES5 – Tall Buildings
DES6 – Waterside Development
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES10 – Public Art
DES11 – Design and Crime
H8 – Open Space
S2B – Retail and Leisure Development Outside Town and Neighbourhood Centres
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
ER2A – Regional strategic views along the River Mersey and Manchester Ship Canal
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues are the proposed uses, visual impact of the development and impact upon
surrounding land and uses, parking and traffic, TV reception and open space.
Policies
Policy EC11/1 seeks office development and small scale shopping on this site whilst policy MX1/3 requires
a mix of uses including housing, offices and retail and food and drink uses. MX1/3 also requires the
necessity to have regard to regeneration of the wider area. H1 requires high density residential development
at this location. S2B seeks to focus retail and leisure uses to neighbourhood and town centres except under
certain circumstances including where the provision is for local needs. The reason justification of S2B
explains that it is expected additional retail and leisure development will be required at Salford Quays over
the emerging UDP period to meet the needs of growing residential and business communities. Policy DEV1
seeks, inter alia, development that respects surrounding buildings and uses and DEV2 requires good quality
design and Regional Spatial Strategy policy ER2A in relation to strategic vies and Policy DES1 requires
regard to be had to the surrounding townscape, impact upon views and vistas and the areas horizontal and
vertical rhythms as well as the quality and durability of proposed materials. Policy DES5 specifically refers
to tall buildings and states they can contribute positively to an area given the efficient use of land but impact
upon the surrounding area of the roofline, silhouette and materials needs to be carefully considered. DES6
requires pedestrian walkway alongside Huron Basin and ground floor uses that generate pedestrian activity.
DES10 requires public art to be provided if a development impacts upon the skyline. DES7 requires the
satisfactory levels of amenity for users and neighbours. DEV4 and DES11 require developments be
designed to minimise the risk of miscreant activity. H6, H11 and H8 require open space and children’s play
space be provided on site or a financial contribution be provided for off site provision. Also PPG8 contains
guidance in relation to the effects of tall buildings and impacts upon TV reception.
Principle of Proposed Uses
The principle of residential, office, retail and food and drink development has been established through the
outline consent for the broader Dock 9 site. Policy H1 seeks residential density of over 50 units per hectare
which this proposal achieves. The 2003 reserved matters approval on this site allowed 153 units with a
similar massing and I consider the additional 50 units (203 units proposed in this current scheme) to be
acceptable subject to the scale, siting and design of the development being acceptable.
I have received objection from the Emerson Group to the 147sq.m. retail/food and drink unit on the basis
that this unit could threaten the viability of the Lowry Outlet Mall. The area-based policy in the Adopted
UDP allows for small-scale speciality shopping alongside office and hotel development. The outline for the
wider Dock 9 site allows for 1 million sq.ft. of office space and I consider the addition of a relatively small
retail A1 or A3 to be acceptable. Indeed such a mix of uses would be in accordance with the mixed use
policy for the area and the waterside policy which require regard to be had to the use contributing to activity
in the area throughout the day. Also policy S2B allows for retail uses at the Quays where this would
contribute to the role of the Quays as the City’s major visitor destination and benefit the growing residential
community. A retail unit here would add to activity along the dockside walkway between the Metrolink
stop and the Designer Outlet, The Lowry and Imperial War Museum. I consider the retail unit to be
appropriate to the mix of uses at the Quays, consistent with the outline approval, the adopted and emerging
UDP policies and Regional Spatial Strategy.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Scale, Siting and Design
The siting of the ten-storey block is 19m from the nearest NV building and the elevation facing NV has no
windows, privacy is therefore not impacted upon. The 20-storey tower is 64m away from NV and I consider
the separation distance for sunlight and daylight to be appropriate for this and the adjoining NV
development. Objection has been raised on the visual impact and impact upon the skyline and views around
the Quays with particular emphasis to The Lowry and Imperial War Museum. The application as amended
has included elevations, perspectives and a model, which aid the assessment of the impact of the height and
mass of the development with regards to site context. The design and materials of the application have also
been amended. I consider the amended scheme with its faceted sides provides a sleek and elegant
development that is both consistent with the quality of the previous approval and would make a positive
contribution to this important site. The flat roof is set upon an indented top floor level and is to be finished
in zinc. The materials of the facades are of good quality and reflect the buildings modern design. I consider
that the design reflects the context of modern innovative design and tall buildings on Salford Quays and is
therefore consistent with existing and proposed UDP policies and the Regional Spatial Strategy.
Ground Level & Dockside Walkway
The principle of a dockside walkway would be maintained by this proposal and I am satisfied that the
introduction of retail/food and drink uses fronting the walkway would increase the usability of the
walkway. The proposed cast iron sculpture, set back from the walkway but open to the general public,
would also add to interest along the walkway and would enhance the development. Private areas and public
areas fronting the walkway are separated by riven slate stone walls and a concrete plinth with illumination
that would act as a continuous seat running alongside the walkway. To the east of the entrance of the
apartments railings are proposed as means of enclosure and the dockside walkway is 8m in width which is
consistent with the adjacent NV buildings. At the west side of the entrance the Dockside walkway increases
in width to 12m to provide increased useable public space. The main entrance to the apartments is inset
within this wall and seat and includes trees as well as the sculpture, which is set above a small pool. The
ground level is finished by the single storey retail/food and drink use, which has floor to ceiling glazing and
a cantilevered roof. This retail unit returns the corner for 14m along the Quays Loop Road and a sloping
slate wall with railings above follows the curve of the site to allow for visibility from the vehicular entrance.
I consider the proposed pedestrian environment along the loop road and the Dockside walkway will be of
high quality.
Parking, Traffic and Access
The 137 car parking spaces, including disabled spaces, are all at ground level and would not be visible from
the dockside walkway. I consider 67% parking and bicycle and motorcycle spaces to be appropriate at this
site, which is on the Metrolink route, to be appropriate given current maximum parking standards. The
parking area would be enclosed in part by the sloping wall alongside the Quays Road and railings to
increase visibility from the car park entrance. The gate to the car park is set in 10m from the road and the
scheme layout provides the same visibility than the previously approved detailed scheme. The level of
development proposed is in accordance with the outline and I have no objections to the level of traffic
created. I have no highway objections to the scheme.
TV Reception
Objection has been raised to interference with TV reception. The applicant has undertaken a desk study that
indicates as constructed this proposal would interfere with analogue TV reception from the Winter Hill
transmitter in Bolton. The applicant has stated he is willing to undertake remedial measures to resolve loss
of analogue TV reception. I am satisfied that by adding a condition linked to occupation of the units the
application will comply with guidance within PPG8.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Open Space Provision
Policies H6, H11 and H8 require children’s play space and formal open space to be provided on site or off
site through a financial contribution. The outline permission for the whole of Dock 9 approved residential
development and within the S106 required the development of an area of open space within the remainder
of Dock 9 to take account of for 600 residential units. Three earlier detailed approvals have allowed 600
units on Dock 9. The earlier detailed approval on this site allowed 153 units and the applicant has agreed
that the additional 50 units should be taken account of in an additional S106 contribution for play space,
formal open space/environmental improvements off site with regard to H6, H11 and H8.
The submitted ground investigation and noise assessments identify issues that need to be resolved but do
not satisfactorily suggest remedies for the protection of public health or amenity of future occupiers. I have
therefore attached a condition for both noise and ground investigation each requiring methods for
mitigation to be submitted. If these conditions are attached I am satisfied the application is fully in
accordance with adopted and emerging UDP policies.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The application has been amended three times in order to improve the design, appearance, elevations and
appearance of the scheme. The scheme provides for an enhanced and more inviting active pedestrian
environment along the dockside walkway than the previously approved detailed scheme. The application
includes a S106 obligation for off site contribution to open space/children’s play space.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the scheme would produce a high quality development that would sit comfortably within the
existing high density area of The Quays. I am satisfied with the level of parking proposed at this accessible
location. I also consider that there would not be a significant detrimental impact upon nearby properties. I
recommend the application be approved subject to the legal obligation and following conditions.
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 following:
1. a commuted sum payment of £88,418 for formal open space, children’s play space and local
environmental improvements.
ii. That the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission on
completion of such legal agreement
iii. That authority is given for the decision notice relating to the application to be issued, subject to the
conditions and reasons stated below, on completion of such 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 area.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
(Conditions)
1. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the roofs, walls,
boundary walls & railings, barrier of the car park, windows and doors of the development have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services.
2. This permission does not include any roof plant or other structures on the roof other than those clearly
shown on the submitted drawings.
3. No dwelling shall be occupied until the associated provision for off street car and bicycle parking has
been completed and made available for the use of that dwelling to the satisfaction of the Director of
Development Services. Such spaces shall be available at all times for the parking of a private motor
vehicle.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit for the approval of the
Director of Development Services a lighting scheme for the development. Once approved such scheme
shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development.
5. Prior to first occupation of the development or within one month of the practical completion of the
development, whichever is sooner and at any other time during the construction of the development if
requested in writing by the City Council as local planning authority in response to identified television
signal reception problems within the potential impact area, the developer shall submit for the approval
of the Director of Development Services a scheme that will detail measures to remedy identified
television signal reception problems as identified by the submitted application. The scheme, which
shall be undertaken by a body approved by the Independent Television Commission, shall identify such
measures necessary to maintain at least the pre-existing level and quality of signal reception identified
in the submitted ERA report dated May 2004. The approved scheme shall be carried out either before
first occupation of the development or within one month of the scheme being submitted for approval,
whichever is the earlier.
6. Prior to the first occupation of any residential unit hereby approved the dockside promenade shall be
made up and landscaped by the developer in accordance with the submitted application. Once made up
and landscaped the walkway shall remain open and accessible for all members of the public to pass and
re-pass at all times. The walkway, including soft and hard landscaping, shall be maintained at the
developers expense in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
7. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
8. In order to establish clearly the noise environment at the proposed development the developer shall
submit an acoustics report detailing the ambient noise levels in the area about the application site
making reference to Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise. Where appropriate, the
report shall identify any sound attenuation measures necessary to protect the proposed dwelling, and
which will ensure a reduction of indoor noise levels to below 35dB(A) LAeq as set out in the WHO
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Guidelines for Community Noise 1999. The report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority
PRIOR to the commencement of the development and all identified sound proofing measures shall be
implemented and retained for the duration of approval.
9. 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, surface treatment, hard
surface treatments and dockside features (sculpture, safety, lighting and street furniture) shall be carried
out and completed prior to the first occupation of any dwelling on the site and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. Any trees or shrubs dying
within five years shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
10. Visibility splays of 4.5 metres by 70 metres shall be provided at the junction of the site accesses with
the Quays Road and shall thereafter be maintained free of any obstruction over 1.0 metre in height
above the adjacent carriageway.
11. This application shall relate to the amended plans and elevations received on the 17th September 2004
except for the parking/vehicle access layout received by email on the 24th September 2004.
12. Notwithstanding the submitted elevations prior to the commencement of development the developer
shall submit, for the written approval of the Director of Development Services, a south elevation and
layout plan showing the means of enclosure alongside the dockside walkway between the proposed
sculpture and the adjacent NV site. Once approved such details shall be implemented prior to the
occupation of the development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. To provide a remedy to the identified loss of TV reception as a result of the development hereby
approved and to ensure that the development at least maintains the existing level and quality of
television signal reception as advised in PPG 8: Telecommunications.
6. To ensure that the there is public access to the pedestrian areas created and that such areas are
maintained in accordance with policy DEV1.
7. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
9. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Unitary Development Plan.
10. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
11. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
12. Standard Reason R040A Secured from crime
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's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from North West Water.
3. 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.
4. This permission does not grant consent under the Town and Country Planning (Control of
Advertisements) Regulations 1992 for the advertisement(s) shown on the submitted plan, nor does it
imply that such consent would be forthcoming.
5. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment Agency.
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.
APPLICATION No:
04/48765/FUL
APPLICANT:
Abito
LOCATION:
Land At Junction Of Greengate And Gravel Lane Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Erection of nine storey block comprising 256 apartments with
commercial
uses
including
offices
(B1),
retail
(A1),
financial/professional services (A2) and restaurant/bar (A3).
WARD:
Ordsall
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land at the junction of Greengate and Gravel Lane. The area currently comprises
a mix of uses dominated by open car parking and contains a large number of vacant sites and neglected
buildings.
A masterplan is currently being prepared for the wider Greengate area that includes this site. It is currently
proposed that this building would sit in the north west corner of a new public space.
The site covers an area of just 0.21 hectare and it is proposed to erect a nine storey building comprising 256
one-bedroom apartments with retail and commercial floorspace at ground floor level. The scheme has been
amended so that there is now no car parking. The building would be roughly triangular in shape. A total of
834sq.m of commercial floorspace is now proposed at ground floor level in a total of six units. There would
be two access points for residents on the north and south elevations. Waste and recycling facilities would
be to the rear of the building on the west elevation. Each of the 3 corners of the site would be fully glazed
commercial floorspace. Concierge, post room and the recycling facilities would be contained between
these commercial elements and would be faced in metal panels.
The apartments are specifically designed to offer cheaper ‘city centre’ residential accommodation to young
professionals and they would be approximately 25% less expensive than equivalent one bedroomed
apartments in the city centre. Each apartment would have a balcony and would comprise one room
separated into various parts by a freestanding central unit that houses all the services. The elevations will
comprise full height and width glazing behind the balconies.
The building would be topped by a fabric roof canopy supported by metal posts and cables that would cover
the full height internal courtyard.
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – The proposal site lies within the medieval core of Salford.
Buildings are shown here on the 1650 map of Manchester and Salford. The site lies at the western edge of
the medieval market place that was a rectangular village green on Greengate, at the junction with Gravel
Lane. Despite later development of the site, there is a potential for medieval and early post-medieval below
ground archaeological remains. It is requested that a condition be attached in order to protect
archaeological interests on the site.
United Utilities – No objections but provides advice
Director of Environmental Services – No comments to date
Greater Manchester Police – No objections but has some concerns regarding security issues and provides
advice.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive - The site is well located in relation to public transport
and the site benefits from its close proximity to Manchester city centre. Future residents and staff of this
proposal have access to a real choice of travel mode, which should help reduce the number of car journeys
otherwise generated by such a development. Futhermore, the use of this site for high-density residential
development is supported as it maximises the benefits of the excellent public transport accessibility.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Access to all the facilities in the city centre contributes to sustainable development by reducing the need to
travel. It is encouraging to note the low level of car parking provision accompanying this proposal.
A masterplan for the re-development of the Greengate area as a whole, addressing public transport
accessibility, infrastructure and service requirements of the area is being prepared.
Environment Agency – No objections in principle but requests a condition regarding contaminated land.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
89 to 93, David Bentley Ltd, JK Car Parks, Safe and Sound Car Parks, Trident Greengate
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: EC14 Improvement Proposals, CS3 Central Salford – Greengate South, T13 Car Parking,
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design.
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1 Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, A10 provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments, DEV6 Incremental Development.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY.
SD1 – The North West Metropolitan Area Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the development is
acceptable, whether the design of the building is of sufficiently high quality in this important part of the city
and whether the proposals are premature bearing in mind that the wider area is subject to a masterplanning
exercise
Principle of the Development
Policy CS3 states that the City Council will encourage the improvement of the Greengate South area
through a number of measures that include the retention and improvement of industrial and commercial
uses, the upgrading of existing open spaces and car parks and the provision, where possible of additional car
parking.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Draft policy MX1 states that the wider area that includes this site will be developed as vibrant mixed use
areas with a broad range of uses and activities and that in determining the appropriate mix of uses on
individual sites regard will be had to a number of factors. These factors include the positive impact that the
proposed development could have 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 contribution that the proposed development would make towards
securing activity in the area throughout the day and the potential to support the establishment, expansion
and success of the Knowledge Capital.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on housing calls on local planning authorities to plan to meet the housing
requirements of the whole community, to provide wider housing opportunity and choice and a better mix in
the size, type and location of housing than is currently available, and seek to create mixed communities.
Design
Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is satisfied
with the quality of design and the visual appearance of the development.
Draft policy DES1 states that developments will be required to respond to their physical context, respect the
positive character of the local area and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness via a number of
factors that include the scale and size of the building, its contribution in the street scene and the quality of
the proposed materials.
The nature of the building, one-bedroomed apartments that all have a balcony, has to a considerable degree
dictated what the elevations will look like. The architects for the scheme have demonstrated that they have
given the project considerable thought and I am now satisfied that the external materials will be of a high
quality and that the appearance of the building will be of a sufficiently high standard of design.
I am also satisfied that while an entire development made up of just one particular dwelling type would not
normally be appropriate, given that this building is the first in the planned redevelopment of the Greengate
area, there will be suitable mechanisms for achieving the mix of dwelling types in the wider area through
the Greengate masterplan and associated planning documents currently in preparation.
Prematurity
Draft policy DEV6 states that on sites within or immediately adjacent to an area identified for major
development, planning permission will not be granted for incremental development that would
unacceptably hamper or reduce the development options for that wider area.
The application has been drawn up in consultation with the architects undertaking the Greengate
masterplanning exercise and is consistent with the emerging masterplan framework that shows this building
sitting at the northwest corner of a new area of public open space surrounded by buildings of a similar
quality that contribute towards a significant new public area but which are not landmark building sites in
their own right.
I am satisfied therefore that the proposal is consistent with the emerging masterplanning framework and
that it would not hamper or reduce the development options for the wider Greengate area.
Other issues
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
As a result of my concerns regarding ground floor level car parking the applicant has amended the scheme
by removing all such car parking. This has increased the active uses at ground floor level and now means
that no car parking will be provided. I consider that this represents a considerable improvement to the
scheme.
The scheme does not attract a requirement for a contribution under policies H6 and H11 or draft policy H8
as the development does not include any predominantly family accommodation which is defined as being a
dwelling with two bedrooms or more.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
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. A total of £256,000 would be contributed in
this regard, on the basis of £1,000 per apartment. I am of the opinion that this sum would be appropriate and
accords with the Council’s policies in this regard.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the main issues are whether the design of the proposed building is acceptable and whether the
application is premature bearing in mind the upcoming masterplan for the wider Greengate area. I am
satisfied that the design is of an acceptable quality and that the application would not hamper or reduce the
development options for the wider area. I am satisfied therefore that the application complies with policy
DEV2 and draft policy DEV6 as well as with the development plan as a whole.
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 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 £256,000;
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 do not support the aim and
objectives of the Chapel Street Regeneration Project.
(Conditions)
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development/demolition shall take place within the proposal area until the applicant has secured the
implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of
investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the 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. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the external
elevations and roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director
of Development Services.
5. No A3 retail unit shall be brought into use unless and until a detailed scheme for the extraction system
which treats fumes and odours before their emission to the atmosphere so as to render them innocuous
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall detail
how the extraction unit will be attenuated and mounted to minimise the transmission of airbourne and
structure bourne noise and vibration. The works forming the approved scheme shall be completed
entirely in accordance with the approved scheme and thereafter the works forming the approved
scheme shall at all times remain in place.
6. The hours of operation of any A3 unit shall be between the hours of 8am and 12 midnight only.
7. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a desk study has been
undertaken and agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services to investigate and produce
an assessment of the risk of the potential for on-site contamination. If the desk study identifies potential
contamination a detailed site investigation and risk assessment should be carried out to establish the
degree and nature of the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to
human health. If remediation measures are necessary they will be implemented in accordance with the
assessment and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
8. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of recycling facilities has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme shall be
implemented in full prior to the occupatiuon of any dwelling.
9. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of cycle storage has been submitted
to and agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme as is approved shall be
implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
10. Before the any individual A3 use commences a litter bin shall be provided in accordance with details of
its design and siting, to be approved in writing by the Director of Development Services, and shall be
maintained thereafter at all times.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. To make a record of remains of archaeological interest in accordance with policy EN14 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
5. Standard Reason R027A Amenity and quietude
6. Standard Reason R027A Amenity and quietude
7. To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution in accordance with
policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
9. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
10. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
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. This permission shall relate to the ground floor plan and elevations amended as a result of the removal
of all car parking from the scheme.
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, DEV2 Good Design, CS3 Central Salford.
4. 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.
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
5. The applicant's attention is drawn to the need to intercept surface water draining from the development
prior to its entering the highway across a footway, to meet the requirements of Section 103 of the
Highways Act 1980.
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 applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment Agency.
APPLICATION No:
04/48423/REM
APPLICANT:
Elite Homes North Ltd
LOCATION:
Akzo Nobel (UK) Limited Dean Road Cadishead
PROPOSAL:
Details of the siting, design, external appearance of 75 dwellings with
associated landscaping, car parking, construction of new vehicular
access on Dean Road, emergency access on Allotment Rd, close existing
vehicular access on Magenta Ave
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This reserved matters application relates to the site of the former Akzo Nobel ink works. Outline planning
permission was granted in Dec 2000 for the development of land for residential purposes and a further
approval for a time extension was approved earlier this year. The reserved matters for consideration are
siting, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping.
The site, which covers an area of 2.2 hectares, is bounded by the railway embankment to the north, the Irlam
Industrial Estate to the north east, and by residential development on all other boundaries.
A total of 75 dwellings are proposed, comprising 43 two-storey detached dwellings (24 four-bed and 19
three-bed) in addition to 31 apartments in a 2.5/3.5 storey block (30 two-bed and 1 one-bed). A number of
the dwellings include provision for conservatories to the rear. A mixture of driveways, double driveways
and garages have been identified for each of the detached dwellings. 100% parking is proposed for the
apartments. Vehicular access into the residential development would be from Dean Road – this would be
the sole access to the development for residents. An emergency access is proposed from Allotment Road
and would be restricted by bollards.
Landscaping proposals have been submitted which include details of fencing and planting within private
gardens and the public areas. A 2 metre high acoustic fence is proposed to the boundary adjacent to the
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
railway. An area of informal public open space (POS) is proposed. This would be located centrally within
the site, adjacent to the railway boundary.
A design statement, highways statement and noise assessment have been submitted with the application.
SITE HISTORY
03/47123/OUT - Variation of condition 1 on planning permission 00/41510/OUT to extend the time for
submission and implementation of reserved matters in respect of outline planning application for
development of land for residential purposes. Approved 15.01.2004
03/46491/FUL - Works for the remediation of contaminated land. Approved 18.09.2003
00/41510/OUT - Outline planning application for development of land for residential purposes. Approved
07.12.2000
99/39868/OUT - Outline planning application for development of land for residential purposes. Approved
03.02.2000
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Recommend a contaminated land condition is attached to any
planning approval. The noise assessment submitted has been considered and there is potential for noise
from the railway line and industrial estate and a condition is therefore recommended requiring acoustic
glazing to the habitable room windows of a number of specified plots.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – A number of comments have been made: a knee rail
is recommended between plots 14 and 15 to prevent cars taking a short cut across the grass, fences to
railway and open space boundaries should be 2.1m high, there should be no unrestricted access between the
front and rear of dwellings, front doors to upper level flats are hidden under underpasses – all entrance
doors should face directly onto the street, do not like the recessed front door to the Windermere house type
– the recess will give a hiding place where the door can be attacked unseen from the road.
Greater Manchester Geological Unit – Records indicate that there are no mines, quarries or landfill sites
within 250m of the application site. In their opinion, the site is not at risk from migrating landfill gas, from
known sources. Due to the industrial history of the site, there may be a risk of historical contamination and
this should be investigated further. It is advised that a detailed site investigation is undertaken.
United Utilities – No objection, providing that, if possible, the site is drained on a separate system, with foul
drainage only connected into the foul sewer. Surface water should discharge to the water
course/soakaway/surface water sewer and may require the consent of the Environment Agency. Full details
must be discussed with United Utilities. A public sewer runs along part of the site and United Utilities will
not permit building over it. An access strip of no less than 6m wide (measuring at least 3m either side of the
centre line of the sewer) is required. Site layout modifications/ diversion of sewer at applicants expense
may be necessary – applicant advised to contact United Utilities at an early stage. Deep rooted shrubs and
trees should not be planted in the vicinity of the sewer. A separate metered supply to each unit will be
required – please contact United Utilities regarding connection to the water mains. The applicant should
check whether the electricity substations at the end of Allotment Road are within their land ownership and
that United Utilities maintenance and/or access rights are maintained.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Environment Agency – No objection in principle. A condition is recommended requiring a desk top study
to identify all previous uses and potential contaminants, a site investigation, a method statement and
remediation strategy.
Network Rail – No objection in principle, subject to attached terms and conditions. Guidance provided to
the developer on fencing, requirement for detailed plans and sections to be submitted to Railtrack prior to
commencement of development, surface water discharge, ground support/ loadings, protection of railway,
lighting, landscaping and future ownership.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 10th June 2004
A site notice was displayed on 4th June 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 – 8 (e) Alfred Street (Albert Street)
68 – 80 (e) Allotment Road
1 – 58 (e) Dean Road
1 – 7 Richard Reynolds Court, Dean Road
1 – 3 (o) Jellicoe Avenue
20 – 32 (e) Nelson Drive
2 – 16 (e) Rivington Grove
4 – 8 (e), 658 – 662 (e), Council Offices, Liverpool Road
2 – 20 (e) Magenta Avenue
1 – 11 Quill Court
2 – 8 (e), 1 – 11 (o), 15 – 25 (o) Sienna Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a 60-name petition objecting to the use of Dean Road on the grounds of safety and quality of
life. I have also received 51 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:-
-
concerns raised regarding proposed ‘emergency access’ on Allotment Road. Such emergency
access to private housing is not required under any circumstances and that anyone who implies this
has some ulterior motive for requesting it. Should be provided at the end of Magenta Avenue.
Emergency access using Allotment Road is unacceptable because of the distance along Prospect
Road then Allotment Road
There is an alternative access to the site – Magenta Avenue
The reduced visibility splay referred to in the Traffic Report is dangerous and unacceptable when
there is a practicable alternative
Four storey flats will overshadow the proposed houses in Magenta Avenue, as does the existing tall
wall at the side of the existing development
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
-
-
-
-
7th October 2004
Traffic report in favour of using Dean Road does not take into account the fact that there are 45
large detached houses which are likely to be occupied by families using 3 or more cars and the flats
will be occupied by families having two cars
Objection to the proposed use of Dean Road as the access to the development – Dean Road is
narrow, not straight and is restricted to one car width over most of its length due to the parked cars
on both sides of the road. Passing spaces may well be available during quite times of the day, but
the situation later in the day is totally different as a parked car occupies every available space on
both sides of the road.
An estimated 300 – 400 extra car movements per day through Dean Road would be intolerable
A traffic increase of the proportions envisaged (more than double existing) must have a detrimental
affect on safety
Considerable numbers of children live and play on Dean Road and the implications for their safety
is obvious
Previous traffic report by TPK Consulting conflicts with the submitted traffic report – the original
report was based on only 66 houses that were to be low cost houses yet did not support the Dean
Road only access
The Traffic Report is seriously flawed and is not impartial as it is paid for by the developer. Fails to
identify accidents at the junction of Dean Road/ Liverpool Road.
Currently damage to vehicles on a daily basis due to narrow width of Dean Road, due to vehicles
turning and reversing
Turning from Liverpool Road into Dean Road is hazardous
Dean Road should remain as a cul-de-sac and a turning circle should be incorporated at the end of
the road
Everybody will use Dean Road as a thoroughfare onto Allotment Road or even a shortcut through
to New Moss Road when the traffic is built up on Liverpool Road
Public open space will be for the use of the development only and not the residents of this densely
populated area
Objection to loss of trees
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EN5 Nature Conservation
H6 /H11 Open Space Provision within Housing Developments
DEV1 Development Criteria
T13 – Car Parking
DEV2 Good Design
DEV4 Design and Crime
DEV7 – Development of Contaminated Land
EN20 – Pollution Control
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY(INCORPORATING PRE-INQUIRY
CHANGES)
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development
DES1 Respecting Context
DES11 Design and Crime
DES13 – Design Statements
DES9 Landscaping
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN13 – Contaminated Land
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: vehicular access to the proposed development and
traffic generation, the density of the proposed development, the siting of the dwellings, the provision of
open space within the development, the design and external appearance of the development, the level of car
parking provision, contaminated land remediation and whether the proposal complies with the relevant
provisions of both the adopted Unitary Development Plan and the Replacement Plan. I will deal with each
in turn below.
Vehicular Access and Traffic Generation
Adopted Policy DEV1 states that regard should be had to a number of criteria in the determination of
planning applications, including the relationship to the road and public transport networks and the likely
scale of traffic generation.
The majority of the objections raised relate to vehicular access and traffic generation, in particular, the use
of Dean Road as the vehicular access to the development, increase in traffic and the impact of this on
residential amenity and safety and the proposed emergency access to the development.
Firstly, with reference to concerns raised regarding Dean Road being the sole vehicular access to the site, it
is necessary to consider the planning history to this site and the adjacent residential development at
Magenta Avenue. Outline planning permission was approved in 2000 for the development of land for
residential purposes and all matters were reserved. In consideration of that application, it was considered
that the most appropriate form of development would be via a loop road between Dean Road and Magenta
Avenue. Conditions were therefore attached to the planning approval requiring the provision of a loop road
between Magenta Avenue and Dean Road and the making up of Magenta Avenue, between the site access
and Liverpool Road, to adoptable standards.
A second outline planning application for the development of land for residential purposes with all matters
reserved was subsequently submitted in 2000, which sought the removal of the previously attached
conditions relating to the loop road and the making up of Magenta Avenue to adoptable standards. In the
Report to Panel, it was not considered that the opening up of Dean Road would necessarily result in an
unacceptable increase in traffic or lack of highway safety and nor was it considered appropriate or desirable
to fetter the applicant by making improvements to land outside his control a condition of any planning
approval. Planning permission was subsequently approved without these two conditions. Planning
permission was approved earlier this year for the variation of condition 1 on planning permission
01/42510/OUT to extend the time for submission and implementation of the reserved matters in respect of
the outline planning application for development of land for residential purposes, again, no conditions were
attached requiring a loop road or the making up of Magenta Avenue.
In 2003, a planning application was received for the erection of 16 dwellings together with associated car
parking and alteration to existing, and construction of new vehicular access on land off Magenta
Avenue(03/45589/FUL). Planning permission was approved, subject to conditions, including a condition
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
requiring Magenta Avenue to be made up to adoptable standards, extending up to and including the western
boundary to the current planning application site boundary to the west. A planning application was
subsequently received for the variation of this condition (03/46904/FUL). The applicant had no objection to
making Magenta Avenue up to adoptable standards, but wished to vary the requirement to extend the road
up to and including the western boundary, to the Akzo Nobel Inks site (ie the current application site
boundary) and to make the whole length up to adoptable standards. The report to Panel considered the two
outline planning approvals at the Akzo Nobel site and stated that whilst it was a desirable end to achieve,
taking into account the past history, it is not essential to either the Magenta Avenue site or the Akzo Nobel
site and thus cannot be considered necessary. It was therefore recommended that the permission be varied
to allow Magenta Avenue to be made up to adoptable standards to the extent as shown on the submitted
plans, ie up to 5 metres from the boundary to the Akzo Nobel site boundary.
Following earlier concerns, the applicant has made a number of amendments to the proposed development,
to ensure adequate driveway lengths and visibility within the development. Consideration has been given to
the planning history to the site and the details contained within the highways assessment, in particular with
regards to the existing highway circumstances on Dean Road and the proposed traffic flow. I do not
consider that the use of Dean Road as the sole vehicular access to the application site would be detrimental
to highway safety. With reference to the junction of Dean Road and Liverpool Road, there have already
been improvements to allow a right turn lane facility on Liverpool Road, furthermore, the volume of traffic
using Liverpool Road is expected to decrease following completion of the bypass in 2005. Traffic calming
measures are proposed within the proposed development and on Dean Road and would be subject to a
Section 278 Agreement.
Objection has been raised regarding the proposed emergency access point on Allotment Road and the need
for this has been questioned. I can confirm that emergency access points are covered in the document
‘Layout of Roads in Residential Areas’. Should a cul-de-sac exceed 250 metres in length, an emergency
access point will be required. The cul-de-sac starts at the junction of Dean Road with Liverpool Road, the
length of the proposed road is therefore such that the emergency access route is required. The access would
only be used if needed for emergency access by, for example, fire engines. A condition is recommended to
ensure full details of the bollards proposed to ensure that there is no unauthorised access.
Open Space Provision and Landscaping
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. Policy
H8 of the Replacement Plan requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and
informal open space within housing developments. In accordance with these policies, the applicants have
agreed to make a contribution towards open space, through a combination of on-site informal open space
provision and the provision of a commuted sum towards open space in the vicinity, in-lieu of on site formal
provision.
The pre-enquiry changes to policy H8 of the Replacement Plan state that residential development will also
be required to include an adequate provision of private amenity space. Policy DES9 of the Replacement
Plan relates to landscaping and states that developments will be required to incorporate satisfactory hard
and soft landscaping.
I consider that the proposals for open space provision are in accordance with policies H6 and H11, policy
H8 of the Replacement Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on open space. I also
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
consider that there is an adequate level of private amenity space associated with both the apartments and the
detached dwellings and that the landscaping proposals are satisfactory.
Siting of the Dwellings and Density
Adopted Policy DEV1 states that regard should be had to a number of criteria in the determination of
planning applications, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size and density of
the proposed development, the effect on sunlight, daylight and privacy for neighbouring properties and the
visual appearance of the development. Replacement Plan Policy DES7 requires all new developments to
provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development which would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be
permitted.
The proposal is for 75 dwellings on a 2.15 ha site, which equates to a density of 35 homes per hectare. In
consideration of the surrounding housing types, terrace and semi-detached, the housing mix and density is
considered acceptable.
With regards to amenity distances, I consider that the distances between the proposed dwellings and
apartments within the site would allow for satisfactory levels of amenity. With regards to the existing
dwellings on Rivington Grove, the applicant has amended the plans, to achieve distances of between 20m
and 21m from plots 17 to 21. Furthermore, these plots would be positioned at an angle and would not
directly face the existing dwellings. Conservatories are proposed to the rear of a number of the plots facing
the existing dwellings on Rivington Grove, whilst these would be sited less than 21m from the existing
dwellings, I do not consider that there would be any loss of privacy given the proposed boundary treatment
(1.8m fence) and existing planting and boundary treatments. As an extra measure of control, I have
recommended that permitted development rights are removed for these plots. With reference to the
objection in relation to the overshadowing of dwellings on Magenta Avenue, I can confirm that there would
be a minimum distance of 24.5 metres between plots 52 to 57 of the proposed 3 storey apartments and the
facing dwellings off Magenta Avenue which were approved under planning permission 03/45589/FUL. I
do not therefore consider that there would be any loss of privacy or overshadowing of these dwellings.
The proposal has been amended as a result of my earlier concerns relating to the relationship to existing
residential properties surrounding the site and amenity distances between proposed dwellings. In addition,
the siting of the proposed apartments has been amended to allow for natural surveillance of the public open
space. I am satisfied that the proposed detached dwellings would be a sufficient distance from neighbouring
dwellings so as not to result in unacceptable detrimental impacts to the amenity of existing residents.
Design and External Appearance
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 and policy DEV4 encourages greater
consideration of crime prevention and personal and property security in the design of new development.
Replacement Plan 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. Replacement Plan policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the
Adopted UDP.
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Policy DES13 of the Replacement UDP requires applicants for all major developments to submit a design
statement, detailing how the development takes account of the need for good design. This should detail the
design principles and design concept and how these are reflected in the developments layout, density, scale,
visual appearance and landscaping. A Design Statement has been submitted which considers urban design
principles. The proposed development has been designed to include a variety of house-types. A mixture of
materials are proposed including a variety of brickwork and render, a condition has been attached requiring
samples of materials to be submitted for approval. I consider that the variety in dwelling mix, housetypes
and materials will complement the character of the area. Following concern raised regarding a lack of
surveillance to the ‘fly-over’ apartment, the position of the access has been repositioned to the front
elevation.
I consider that the design and external appearance of the proposed dwellings is acceptable.
Level of Car Parking Provision
Policy T13 of the UDP 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. Replacement Plan 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. I consider that the proposed arrangements for car parking for the detached
dwellings are acceptable and I consider that 100% parking provision is acceptable for the apartments, given
consideration of national planning guidance and the close proximity of the proposed development to
Liverpool Road and its associated bus services. Furthermore, cycle parking facilities have been identified
and the developer has indicated that a satisfactory level of disabled parking spaces would be provided. The
location of the parking areas for the apartments allows natural surveillance of these areas from the
apartments.
Contaminated Land and Noise
Policy EN20 states that the Council will encourage and support measures to reduce land contamination and
noise. It states that environmentally sensitive development, such as housing, will not normally be permitted
where existing pollution, including land contamination, is unacceptable unless it can be demonstrated that
the development includes sufficient improvement measures to reduce the nuisance to an acceptable level.
Replacement plan policy EN13 states that development proposals on sites known or thought to be
contaminated will require the submission of a site assessment as part of any planning application and that
remedial measures agreed as part of any planning permission will required to be completed as the first step
of the development.
The Environment Agency and the Greater Manchester Geological Unit both recommend that site
investigations are undertaken. Planning permission was, however, granted in 2003 for works for the
remediation of contaminated land. I have recently received confirmation from the Director of
Environmental Services that these works have partially been completed on site. A condition requiring the
submission of a site completion report for the City Council’s approval is required to be submitted prior to
the occupation of any dwelling, This report will be required to provide information on the previously agreed
remaining remediation issues to a specification accepted by the Director of Environmental Services and the
Site Completion Report shall confirm that the agreed level of gas protection and cover systems have been
implemented during construction.
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
With regards to noise, the noise assessment submitted has been considered and the Director of
Environmental Services has confirmed that there is potential for noise from the railway line and industrial
estate and as such a condition is recommended requiring acoustic glazing to the habitable room windows of
a number of dwellings, including plots 21 to 57.
Subject to satisfactory compliance with the recommended conditions, I am satisfied that this application
accords with Adopted Policy EN20 and Draft Policy EN13.
Other Matters
With reference to policy EN5 Nature Conservation, a small part of the application site lies within the
wildlife corridor, however as the railway line is in use, there would be limited public access and therefore
very little impact on the wildlife corridor from residents of the proposed development using the space,
furthermore, given previous land uses and the contaminated land remediation works, I do not consider that
the proposed development would have any significant detrimental impact on the wildlife corridor. With
regards to the objection raised concerning loss of trees, the previously approved contamination remediation
works would necessitate the removal of any trees within the site.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Since the submission of the reserved matters application, several amendments have been made to the
scheme that have resulted in improvements to the proposal. The layout of the site has been amended so as to
reduce loss of privacy and overlooking to existing dwellings surrounding the site and also within the
development site. The developer will also enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure a contribution
towards the provision and maintenance of open space and in the area.
CONCLUSION
The main issues in the determination of this application are the suitability of the vehicular access
arrangements, the design and scale of the proposal and its impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents
and the amenity provisions for future occupants. With regards to the use of Dean Road as the sole vehicular
access to the development, I am satisfied that the proposals are acceptable in terms of highway safety. I
consider that sufficient levels of amenity will be provided for neighbouring occupiers and for future
occupiers of the development. I consider that the redevelopment of this site for a residential use would make
a significant contribution to the improvement of the amenity of this area. I am satisfied that the application
accords with the relevant provisions of both the Adopted UDP and Replacement UDP.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below once the legal
agreement has been signed:
o
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 £124, 090;
o
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;
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
o
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,
o
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.
(Conditions)
1. 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.
2. Standard Condition F05D Provision of Parking
3. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a traffic calming and street
lighting scheme for the development and Dean Road for the approval of the Director of Development
Services. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the 50% occupation of the dwellings, to
the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (and any subsequent amending order), there shall be no
development within the curtilage of plots 1 to 21 (inclusive) and 64 to 75 (inclusive) hereby approved
as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the above Order without the prior grant of planning permission by
the Local Planning Authority.
5. Prior to the occupation of the on site dwellings, the developer shall submit a site completion report for
the approval of the Director of Development Services. The report shall provide information on the
previously agreed remaining remediation issues to a specification accepted by the Director of
Development Services. The Site Completion Report shall confirm that the agreed level of gas
protection and cover systems have been implemented during construction of the site.
If any contamination issues are identified during development then appropriate action must be taken
with the approval of the Director of Development Services prior to the discharge of this condition.
6. The windows of the following habitable rooms: rear bedroom windows to plots 22 to 31; bedroom
windows to all elevations of plot 21 and all habitable room windows of plots 32 - 57 which face the
industrial estate, shall be acoustically treated by either: double glazed units of 8.4mm Solaglas Stadip
Silence Laminate Glass - (10-16mm) cavity - 10.8mm Solaglas Stadip Silence Laminate Glass or a
secondary glazing system comprising outer standard thermal double glazing of 4mm glass - (6-20mm)
air gap with an additional pane of 6mm secondary glazing with a cavity of at least 100mm between the
outer and inner windows. All the rooms specified above shall have mechanical ventilation to the
standard of the Noise Insulation Regulations (1988) as amended. This must be capable of providing a
ventilation rate of at least 37 litres/second and must be sound attenuated.
7. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received 27th September 2004 which show the
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
amended site layout, amended apartment details and disabled parking spaces.
8. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a scheme for the proposed
emergency access point which shall include full details of design and siting of bollards and proposed
surfacing for the approval of the Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be
implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and the access point shall not be used for
vehicular access or egress, except in connection with the emergency services, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Development Services.
9. Proposed floor levels must not be less than 300mm above footway levels.
10. The landscape scheme hereby approved 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
4. Standard Reason R037A Additional measure of control
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
10. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Existing combined 150mm diameter public sewer in Allotment Road and adjacent to Dean Road
(please see attached plan). There is also an existing 150mm diameter combined public sewer at the rear
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
of plots 1 to 5 (running approximately beneath the fence line), this sewer may need diverting due to
proximity of buildings please contact United Utilities to discuss their requirements.
2. Separate surface water and foul systems will be required. New connections to existing public sewer will
require United Utilities approval. Maximum discharge will need to be agreed with United Utilities.
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities dated 16th
June 2004.
4. Please contact the Director of Development Services (Engineering Design) regarding adoption.
5. Works on existing adopted highway will be subject to a s278 agreement (please contact the City
Council's Traffic Section)
6. The remaining remediation issues that need to be carried and have been agreed are (refer to letter dated
the 8th September 2004 to CEL); The validation report conclusions are subject, "to the suitable
placement of clean cover in the garden areas in accordance with the requirements of Salford City
Council". This should be carried out in conjunction with Salford City Council's standard requirements.
Details of the composition and source of the cover material must be provided within the remediation
statement and sampling must be undertaken to confirm that the material is suitable for use.In addition
with regards to the area to the north-west of the site i.e. the area of the former hydrocarbons spillage it is
required that as a minimum protection of the dwellings to characteristic situation 2 in CIRIA 149 is
provided. Particular emphasis should be placed on finding a protective membrane that is suitable to
prevent volatile ingress. The proposed specification and plans should be submitted and agreed prior to
installation. Please contact the Director of Environmental Services for further information.
7. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached e-mail and Terms and Conditions Note
from Network Rail dated 16th June 2004.
8. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from Greater Manchester Police
Architectural Liaison Unit dated 9th June 2004.
9. 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:
EN5 Nature Conservation
H6 /H11 Open Space Provision within Housing Developments
DEV1 Development Criteria
T13 - Car Parking
DEV2 Good Design
DEV4 Design and Crime
DEV7 - Development of Contaminated Land
EN20 - Pollution Control
APPLICATION No:
04/48454/FUL
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
APPLICANT:
BBS Developments
LOCATION:
Site Of The Former United Reform Church Weaste Road Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing church and the erection of a four storey block
comprising 17 apartments with associated car parking and landscaping
(Resubmission of planning application 03/47216/FUL)
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 16th September 2004 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION ON DESIGN, CAR PARKING AND SEPARATION
DISTANCES TO THE HOUSES ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF WEATSE ROAD.
As detailed in the report below, the site is allocated for housing area improvement and renewal in the
adopted Unitary Development Plan. The design of the proposal, which steps up at the junction of Weaste
Road and Weaste Lane, would create a focal point for the development, and a landmark building for this
area, which I feel is important given the demolition of the United Reform Church that previously occupied
this site. The modern, flat roofed design of the building would be an attractive contrast to the older
surrounding properties, especially the All Souls RC Church located on the opposite side of Liverpool
Street.
The issue of car parking has discussed in the main body of the report. I am satisfied with the level and
provision of parking proposed which includes cycle lock-ups and disabled parking. The provision of less
parking would have a greater impact on the demand for on-street parking, and an increase in parking
provision would be difficult to achieve given the size of the site.
With regard to the issue of the separation distance to the properties on the opposite side of Weaste Road, I
acknowledge that the distance would be short of what the Council normally requires. However, as detailed
in the report, a number of constraints apply to this site and so it is unlikely that any development could be
secured which would fully satisfy all of the Councils normal requirements. Furthermore, the separation
distance that would be achieved is significant (18m), and would be comparable to the existing relationship
between properties to the south on Weaste Road. I am satisfied that the development would not result in a
significant loss of privacy for neighbouring occupiers. On balance, taking into account the regeneration
benefits of this development, the site constraints which exist, and the improvements to the design that have
been secured, I reiterate the recommendation for approval.
My previous observations are set out below:-
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former site of the United Reformed Church which has recently been
demolished. The site is triangular in shape and is located at the junction of Weaste Lane and Weaste Road
which is where Tootal Road and Liverpool Street meet. The site is open to long views from Tootal Road,
Liverpool Street and Weaste Lane. Surrounding uses are mainly two/three storey residential houses whilst
All Souls Church is on the opposite side of Liverpool Street. The site is enclosed at present by a dwarf wall
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
and railings with vehicular access from Weaste Road. The boundary of the site fronting Weaste Road is also
protected by temporary security fencing which prevents access to the site for reasons of safety.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of an apartment block containing seventeen one and two
bedroom apartments. The building wraps around the corner of the site, with the four-storey element
forming a strong visual feature at the junction. Going south down both Weaste Road and Weaste Lane the
building drops in height to three storeys, providing a mass which reflects the ridge height of the existing
dwellings which border the site. The palette of materials that would be used includes brickwork to match
local vernacular, white render and silver faced cladding board.
Vehicular access is proposed in a similar position to the existing vehicular access on Weaste Road with 14
off road parking spaces including two disabled spaces. Provision for three secure cycle lock-ups is also
proposed. The proposed building has a modern design that curves around Weaste Road and Weaste Lane
with some amenity space between two wings. The main frontage of the proposed building would not extend
beyond the existing building line on Weaste Road. A design statement has been submitted with the
application.
SITE HISTORY
In 2004 an application for the erection of 17 apartments similar to the current application was withdrawn
(03/47216/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
British Coal – No objection
Environment Agency – No objection
Director of Environmental Services – No objection, recommendations received
Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 1st July 2004.
A site notice was displayed on 30th June 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
4-10 (e) Park Bank, Liverpool Street
30-34 (e) & 37-63(o) Weaste Road
1-11 (o) Calvert Street
250-274 (e) Weaste Lane
2 and 4 Tootal Road
4 Lords Lane
619 Liverpool Street
All Saints Presbytery, 622 Liverpool Street
37 Meadowgate Road
REPRESENTATIONS
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
I have received 2 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. One of the letters is
from a local resident and is signed by 15 people. The following issues have been raised:There is insufficient parking proposed which will result in parking problems on Weaste
Lane.
The proposed materials would not be compatible with the terraced houses in the area.
The height of the proposal may affect the television reception for local residents.
Disruption will occur during the construction phase.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7/2 Housing Area Improvement and Renewal – Private Sector
Other policies: H1 Meeting Housing Needs
H6 & H611 Open Space Provision
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: ST11 Location of New Development
ST12 Development Density
H1 Provision of New Housing Development
H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 Design and Crime
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the design and scale of the proposal and its impact
on the amenity of neighbouring residents/businesses, and the amenity provisions for future occupants.
Principle of development
Policy H7/2 explains that the City Council will promote the improvement of the existing housing stock in
the area and the environment. This proposal is in line with the aims of this policy and will make a positive
contribution to the mix of housing types in this area. Furthermore, the development would see the re-use of
brownfield land thus complying with criteria 2 of Policy ST11 and the guidance contained within Planning
Policy Guidance Note 3 – Housing (PPG3), which seeks to prioritise the development of such land over
land which has not been previously developed (greenfield land). Policy ST12 seeks to encourage
appropriate high density development in areas which are close to key public transport Routes. PPG3
stipulates a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare. The proposal represents development that would
have a density of 170 dwellings per hectare. Given that the site is inn close proximity to the metrolink and
major bus routes, I am satisfied that the density of the development is appropriate.
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Design and scale of the proposal and the impact on neighbouring residents / businesses.
Both H1 policies seek to increase the amount of housing within the City with the revised alterations to the
UDP requiring a minimum density of 30 units per hectare. Policies DEV1, DEV2, DES1 and DES7 require
development to respect its context regarding height, scale, mass, materials and also privacy and
sunlight/daylight of surrounding properties.
In terms of the proposed replacement building it would comply with the general themes of both H1 policies.
The proposal would bring a new mix of housing to the area that is predominantly low-rise. With regard to
the objectors concerns over the design and the choice of materials for the development, I am not opposed to
the idea of such a modern building in this area, indeed such a building may help to achieve the objectives of
Policy H7/2 and help the regeneration of the area. The flat roof design of the building helps reduce it’s scale
and massing and the height of the building would be similar to the ridge-height of the houses on the
opposite side of Weaste Road. Furthermore, the building makes the most of this triangular site by creating
a focal point at the junction of Weaste Road and Weaste Lane which turns the corner. The brick elements
proposed, which forms the majority of the building, would match the materials of the houses in the
immediate area, and the white render and silver cladding contribute to the modern design and
distinctiveness of the proposal, which would add interest to the street-scene. Therefore, I am satisfied that
the building would respect the local context. Given that the building would not be notably higher than the
surrounding properties, I do not anticipate television receptions being affected. Furthermore, the proposed
building would be comparable to the United Reform Church which was demolished only recently.
Council Guidance stipulates minimum separation distances from habitable room windows in order to
provide future occupants and neighbouring residents with sufficient levels of amenity. From the proposed
habitable room windows of the Weaste Lane elevation to the habitable room windows of 10 Park Bank
there is a distance of between 16m and 20m. Similarly, from the habitable room windows of the Weaste
Road elevation to the habitable room windows of houses on the opposite side of Weaste Road there is a
distance of 18m. In both cases the Council recommends a minimum distance of 21m.
With regard to the relationship to 10 Park Bank, however, the proposal would be set at an angle to this
property and so the habitable room windows would not be directly facing. Therefore, I am satisfied that this
relationship is acceptable. With regard to the houses on the opposite side of Weaste Road, the proposal
would exceed the existing distances between properties immediately to the south of the site on Weaste
Road. The distance between these existing properties to the south is approximately 17.5m. Although the
proposal would be four storeys at the junction (with the majority of this elevation being only three-storey),
its height would be similar to that of the houses on the opposite side of Weaste Road. Where the building
drops to three storeys to the south, the height of the building would be similar to the ridge height of the
houses closest on both Weaste Road and Weaste Lane. I am therefore satisfied that the building would not
be at odds with the massing of the street scene.
The application site is somewhat constrained in shape and it would be very difficult to achieve a suitable
residential scheme which would achieve greater separation distances. As detailed later, the applicant has
already amended the scheme to increase the separation distance to the houses on the opposite side of
Weaste Road. Given the significant regeneration benefits that this proposal would bring to the area, I am
satisfied with the separation distances proposed.
Policies T13 and A10 seek to achieve appropriate provision of parking for new developments. Planning
Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport and Policy A10 seek to encourage the use of more sustainable forms
of travel such as public transport, cycling and car sharing. Therefore, one of the measures encouraged is
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
maximum levels of parking. The site is close to the Metrolink and bus routes and so I consider the proposed
parking provision to be acceptable and in accordance with national and local policy.
The final objection raised relates to disturbances during the construction phase of the development.
Although I recognise that disruption may take place it would only be for a relatively short period of time.
Given the regeneration benefits that would result from the proposal I consider the short-term disturbances
to be acceptable.
Amenity provisions for future occupants
Policies H6 & H11 and also H8 require appropriate formal and informal open space within developments.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 require development to be designed to minimise the risk of crime.
The proposal includes an area of communal amenity space which would be contained within an inner
courtyard and which would be bound to the south by the in-curtilage parking proposed. This triangular area
(approx 100m2) would provide sufficient usable amenity space in my opinion for future occupants in
accordance with Policies H6, H11 and H8. Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to the provision of
open space and recreation space associated with new residential development requires financial
contributions to be made for proposals which exceed 49 bedspaces. This proposal is for 49 bedspaces only
and thus no section 106 agreement to secure a financial contribution is required. The scheme proposes a
boundary treatment 1.8m in height which would provide a secure site boundary. The design details of the
boundary treatment would be agreed at a later stage if approval were granted. Supplementary Planning
Guidance – Designing Out Crime encourages natural surveillance for new developments (i.e. windows
overlooking parking areas and courtyards in order to discourage criminal activity). The proposal would
provide sufficient levels of natural surveillance for the central courtyard and parking area in my view, and
so I consider the proposal to be in accordance with Policies DEV4 and DES11.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The elevation of the building facing Weaste Road was set back significantly to provide a landscaped
zone 3m in depth to improve the amenity of the area, and also to increase the separation distance to the
houses on the opposite side of the road in order to prevent any serious loss of amenity for those
residents.
Disabled parking and provision for cycle lock-ups were incorporated into the development to achieve
the goals of Policies T13 and A10.
CONCLUSION
The main issues in the determination of this proposal are the suitability of residential development on this
site, the design and scale of the proposal and its impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents/businesses, and the amenity provisions for future occupants. Policy H7/2 supports residential
development on this site, especially flats which would contribute to the mix of dwellings in the area.
Although the separation distances to surrounding residential properties is not in accordance with Council
guidance, I am satisfied that sufficient levels of amenity will be provided for neighbouring occupiers and
for future occupiers of the development. Furthermore, the regeneration of this site, with what is a
well-designed modern building, would make a significant contribution to the amenity of the neighbourhood
and may encourage further regeneration of the wider surrounding area. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
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 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. The developer shall undertake an assessment to determine the external noise levels that the residents
will be subject to (daytime and night). The developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate
the disturbance from the above. The assessment shall have due regard to the Department of the
Environment Guidance PPG24 - Planning and Noise. The building envelope shall be capable of
attenuating the external noise to BS 8233 (sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings - Code of
practice) and World Health Organisation recommendations for a reasonable standard for living rooms /
sleeping accommodation. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development and any
mitigation measures are to be implemented in full prior to occupation of any unit. Prior to discharge of
this condition, a Completion Report shall be submitted to the LPA for approval. The Completion
Report shall validate that all works undertaken on site are completed in accordance with those agreed
by the LPA.
5. Prior to the commencement of development a revised parking layout which makes provision for the
vehicular access gates onto Weaste Road to be set back at least 2.5m from the back of the footpath shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The agreed parking
layout shall be marked out and hardsurfaced and made available prior to first occupation of any of the
flats and shall be made available thereafter for the parking of residents and visitors cars.
6. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the means of access from Weaste
Road has been constructed and laid out according to the details submitted.
7. 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 otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
6. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
7. 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 degree and type of remediation that took place over the areas where former buildings were
demolished prior to levelling is not known. A variety of materials may have been used for backfilling
cellars and voids at the time of demolition, and hence it cannot be discounted that potentially
contaminated materials could have been brought onto the site for this purpose. Once works commence,
should site operatives discover any adverse ground conditions and suspect it to be contaminated, then
they should report this to the site manager. Works in that location should cease and the problem area
should be roped off until representative soil samples are sent for analysis and the results assessed by a
City of Salford Environmental Health Officer, who can advise on the appropriate action.
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 UDP:
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV4 - Design and Crime
H1 - Meeting Housing Needs
T13 - Parking
Revised Deposit Draft UDP:
DES1 - Respecting Context
DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 - Design and Crime
H1 - Provision of New Housing Development
3. Please note this approval relates to the amended plans that were issued on 26th July 2004 and the
additional amended plans (for the site layout, ground floor and elevations) received on 13th September
2004.
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
APPLICATION No:
04/48569/FUL
APPLICANT:
Lanes For Drains Limited
LOCATION:
Lanes For Drains Lansdowne Road Monton Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Erection of one factory unit together with ancilliary offices and
associated car parking and hardstanding, alterations to existing
vehicular access and landscaping
WARD:
Eccles
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 16th September 2004 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION into the impact of future developments of this site which
would not require the submission of a new planning application, the prospect of treating Lansdowne Road
to reduce noise disturbance from vehicles, and the prospect of developing a new access road onto Green
Lane.
If planning permission is approved for this application, it would be possible for Lanes for Drains to move
off the site in the future, and for a different company to occupy and operate from it without the need
planning permission so long as the new use was either B1 (light industry, offices or research), B2 (general
industrial) or B8 (warehouse and distribution covering a maximum of 235m2 of the site). Using the TRICS
database (a database of developments throughout the country and the associated traffic impacts) it would be
expected that any new occupier of the site is likely to generate a total of approximately 174 trips per day.
This would include all employees and visitors travelling to and away from the site (one worker travelling to
work and then home would generate two trips). Only a small proportion of these trips would be generated
from HGV’s. I am satisfied that Lansdowne Road can accommodate this level of traffic generation, and
that such a generation would not have a significant impact on the amenity of the residents. Therefore, I do
not feel that it is necessary to attach a condition restricting the use of the site to Lanes for Drains.
Traffic generates two main forms of noise, mechanical, and the disturbances associated with the tyres of
vehicles coming into contact with the road surface. Resurfacing the road would only have the benefit of
reducing tyre noise, and as tyre noise is a function of speed, there would be no benefit in this case as vehicle
speeds are low with a mean in the low twenties. However, Lansdowne Road could be inspected and any
remedial road repairs could be carried out to reduce ‘thump and bump’ and vibration. This matter will be
reported further at the Panel.
With regard to a new access road to Green Lane, whilst this is possible in engineering terms, it would
involve the need to acquire several parcels of developable land in different ownerships. The purchasing of
the land would have to be funded from the City Council, as it is unlikely that private funding would be
provided. In addition, if one of the landowners were not willing to sell, a case would have to be developed
by the Council to acquire the land with a Compulsory Purchase Order. At the present time there is no
funding ring-fenced to facilitate such a development.
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant industrial site that is accessed from Lansdowne Road. The entrance and
the northern section of Lansdowne Road is residential in character, but the southern section of Lansdowne
Road is characterised by industrial uses. The residential area and the small industrial area are separated by
the M602 which runs over Lansdowne Road. Photographic evidence suggests the site has been clear /
vacant since at least 1997, but recent site visits suggest that the applicant uses a small area of the land to
park vehicles on associated with the Lanes for Drains business. The site covers 0.37 hectares and, although
visible from the M602, is not visible from any residential properties.
The proposal is to erect one factory unit (761 m2) together with ancillary offices (332m2) and associated car
parking, landscaping and alterations to the existing vehicular access. The building would measure 59m X
15.7m and would be 6.5m in height. The walls of the building would be constructed of a mix of brick and
steel sheeting, and the roof would be steel sheeting. Galvanised palisade fencing 2.4m in height would be
erected around the perimeter of the site.
Lanes for Drains currently occupy another site a short distance away on the opposite side of Lansdowne
Road within the industrial area. The existing premises would be retained for operational use. The new
building would be dedicated to the ‘Re-line’ part of the business which involves the rolling out of material
which is then treated with fibreglass resin and taken off-site. The resin would be stored within the proposed
building. At present, this process is carried out in the open. The applicant has indicated that the process
needs to be carried out in a controlled environment, as the resin needs to be of a certain temperature and if
the weather is too hot or too cold it hampers production on site. The hours of operation would be 7am to
7pm Monday to Saturday.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Health – no objection, recommendations made.
Highways Agency – no objection.
Environment Agency – no comments received.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 15th July 2004.
A site notice was displayed on 21st June 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2-84 (even), 1-45 (odd), David Matter, Bergen Transport, Lansdowne Road
Elliot Loo-Hire and Unit 16 Nasmyth Business Centre, Green Lane
86-104 (even) Stanier Avenue
175 and 177 Monton Road
1-17 (odd) and 2-24 (even) Belmont Street
1-22 Dalton Street
1-23 (odd) Carlton Street
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 21 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:The proposal would result in additional traffic and HGVs travelling along Lansdowne
Road which is inappropriate given it is a residential street. This increase in traffic would
affect the amenity of the residents due to an increase in vibrations, noise, dust and dirt
particularly at unsociable times. The increased traffic would damage the road surface, lead
to traffic congestion and would result in a road safety hazard.
The proposal would have a negative impact on local property values.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EC12/7 – Sites for Business and Hi-tech uses.
EC3 – Re-use of Sites and Premises
T13 – Car Parking
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
E3/10 – Sites for employment development.
E5 – Development within established Employment Areas.
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A8 – Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments.
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design and Crime
ST11 – Location of New Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the development at the site, the
impact of the proposal on the residents living on Lansdowne Road, in particular the impact of traffic using
Lansdowne Road, and the design of the building.
Principle of development
Policies EC12/7 and Policy E3/10 both support the development of the site for employment uses. Policy
EC3 and E5 which relate to the re-use of existing employment sites also support the principle of the
proposed development. Furthermore, the development would see the re-use of brownfield land thus
complying with criteria 2 of Policy ST11 which seeks to prioritise the development of such land over land
which has not been previously developed (greenfield land). Given that the neighbouring uses are industrial,
I am satisfied that the proposal respects the character of the immediate surrounding area.
Impact of development on residents living on or near to Lansdowne Road.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in determining planning
applications including the relationship to the road network, the likely scale and type of traffic generation,
the arrangements for servicing and access to the proposed development and the potential level of pollution
including noise, nuisance and vibration. This is reiterated in Policy DES1. Policy DES7 states that
development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments. Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it
would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety by virtue of traffic generation and access. As
detailed above, this site is allocated under Policy E3/10 of the replacement Unitary Development Plan. This
policy states that potential problems of loss of residential amenity caused by traffic generation might place
limits on the nature and scale of employment development, unless an alternative access to Green Lane is
provided through the business Park.
The main concerns raised by residents are the impacts of additional traffic generated by the proposal, which
would use Lansdowne Road. The applicant has indicated on the application that 10 HGVs and 20 other
vehicles would visit the site in a normal working day. Following further discussions with the applicant,
additional information and evidence of deliveries was submitted to clarify the level of additional traffic
generation that would result from the proposal.
The applicant has explained that the deliveries of raw materials to their existing site (and the loads leaving
the site) are mainly part loads (that is, the current volume of business does not merit full load deliveries on
all occasions). The proposal represents the relocation and expansion of the ‘Re-line’ element of their
current operations which are carried out on their existing site. The additional business that would be
generated as a result of the relocation and expansion onto the subject site would result in more full loads
arriving at and leaving the site as opposed to more HGVs arriving at and leaving the site. Therefore, it is
unlikely that the proposal would result in a material increase in HGVs travelling along Lansdowne Road.
The incoming delivery records of the company show an average of 4 delivery vehicles per week over the
period April-June 2004. With regard to the number of additional employees, the applicant has indicated
that approximately 6 new jobs would be created at the site resulting in minimal additional traffic from
employees.
In 1999 this Panel refused an application for a waste transfer station in close proximity to the site currently
under consideration on the grounds of general disturbance. The proposal was subsequently allowed
following an appeal. It was estimated that the waste transfer station would generate an additional 10 HGVs
each day. The Inspector held that this level of traffic generation (approximately one movement per hour)
would not have a significant impact on the amenity of residents living on Lansdowne Road in respect of
noise and disturbance. Prior to the grant of this planning permission a traffic count study was carried out on
Lansdowne Road (July 2002), and a second study was carried out in June of this year to assess the impact of
the waste transfer station on the traffic travelling along Lansdowne Road. The two sets of data show that
the number of HGV journeys has increased from an average of 7 per day to 30 per day, with all other types
of traffic remaining at a similar level. This data has been placed on file. However, as explained in the
previous paragraph, the proposal currently under consideration is not expected to increase the level of
HGV’s using Lansdowne Road.
With the information provided, I consider that the proposal would generate only a small amount of
additional traffic, and as a consequence I feel the amenity of residents living on or near to Lansdowne Road
would not be significantly affected from noise or disturbance from these vehicular movements. A condition
has been attached restricting the hours of operation in order to minimise disturbances during unsociable
hours.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
The site is within an industrial area which is separated from the housing on Lansdowne Road by the M602.
Given that the site is not visible from any residential properties, I do not consider the proposal would have a
detrimental impact on the residents in terms of visual amenity, noise or odour. The impact of the proposal
on local property values is speculative and is not a material planning consideration.
Design
Policy DEV2 states that the Council will not normally grant planning permission for new development
unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Policy DES1 states
that development will be required to respond to its physical context. Policies DEV4 and DES11 seek to
encourage the inclusion of design measures which reduce criminal activity.
The proposed building would be comparable in design to surrounding industrial units and in my view is
acceptable. The building would be set back from Lansdowne Road by 3m to allow for some landscaping.
Given that Lansdowne Road is for access only, I consider the proposed landscaped area to be adequate. The
proposed perimeter fencing is similar to other fencing types in the immediate vicinity and so I consider this
element of the proposal to be acceptable. Furthermore, the fencing would improve security for the site in
accordance with Policies DEV4 and DES11.
Policies T13 and A10 seek to achieve appropriate provision of parking for new developments. Planning
Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport and Policy A10 seek to encourage the use of more sustainable forms
of travel such as public transport, cycling and car sharing. Therefore, one of the measures encouraged is
maximum levels of parking. Given the size of the proposed development a maximum of 18 car parking
spaces and a minimum of 2 disable parking spaces, 2 motorcycle spaces and 2 secure bicycle lock-ups
should be provided on site. This provision has been conditioned.
In addition, Policy A1 requires large developments to be accompanied by a Travel Plan as a measure to
encourage more sustainable forms of travel. The applicant has agreed to the principle of a Travel Plan and
a condition has been attached.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
- The parking provision has been amended to provide for disabled, cycle and motorcycle parking.
Furthermore, the principle of a Travel Plan has been agreed with the applicant.
- Further fencing details have been submitted by the applicant for the avoidance of any doubt in
terms of the design.
CONCLUSION
The main considerations in the determination of this application are the principle of the development at the
site, the impact of the proposal on the residents living on or near to Lansdowne Road and the proposed
design. I am satisfied that the use would be in keeping with the surrounding area and the site allocations for
both the adopted and replacement Unitary Development Plans. Given the likely level of traffic generation
and given that the M602 separates the residential element of Lansdowne Road from the industrial element,
I do not consider that the proposal would result in a serious loss of amenity for residents living on or near to
Lansdowne Road. The design is acceptable in this location. I am of the opinion that the proposal is in
accordance with the policies mentioned above and hence recommend approval for the application.
RECOMMENDATION:
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
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. 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. The use hereby permitted shall NOT be operated on Sundays and Bank Holidays and shall ONLY be
operated between the hours of 7:00 and 19:00 Monday to Saturday inclusive.
5. 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 contamination on site and shall include an identification and
assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA,
focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address
the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied
building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors
including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the 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 Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works
undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
6. Notwithstanding the plans submitted, a revised parking layout shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of development. The
revised parking layout shall include a maximum of 18 parking spaces and a minimum of 2 parking
spaces for disabled people, 2 motorcycle spaces and provision for at least 2 secure cycle lock-ups. The
agreed layout shall be set out and made available for the parking of employees and visitors prior to the
commencement of the use and shall remain available at all times.
7. Prior to the commencement of development a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Director of Development Services. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented within 1
month of first occupation and continued thereafter.
8. Standard Condition J01F No Open Storage
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
9. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the means of access from
Lansdowne Road have been constructed and laid out according to the details submitted.
(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
5. To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution.
6. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
7. In the interests of moving towards sustainability, reducing environmental pollution and promoting
energy conservation in accordance with Policy A1 of the Revised Replacement Draft City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan .
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
Note(s) for Applicant
1. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Directorate of
Environmental Services (Tel: (0161) 793 2046).
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:
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
EC12/7 - Sites for Business and Hi-tech uses.
Other policies:
EC3 - Re-use of Sites and Premises
T13 - Car Parking
DEV1 - Development Criteria
DEV2 - Good Design
DEV4 - Design and Crime
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
E3/10 - Sites for employment development.
Other policies:
E5 - Development within established Employment Areas.
A1 - Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A8 - Impact of Development on the Highway Network
A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments.
DES1 - Respecting Context
DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 - Design and Crime
ST11 - Location of New Development
3. Please note that, other than that agreed as part of this proposal, the laying out of additional parking
would require the submission of a new application.
4. With regard to the Travel Plan please contact Steven Glazebrook for further information and to discuss
the scope of the Travel Plan. He can be contacted on 0161 793 3847.
APPLICATION No:
04/48774/FUL
APPLICANT:
Orbit Investments (Salford) Ltd
LOCATION:
Metroplex Business Park Site Broadway Salford 5
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two 3-storey office buildings with carparking together with
associated alterations to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant, ‘L-shaped’ site 1 hectare in size, which lies within the Metroplex
Business Park. To the south-west is Broadway, with other commercial units to the south-east, west and
north-west. To the north-east is the Weaste Cemetry, which accommodates several listed structures.
Separating the application site from the cemetery is a band of mature trees which provides substantial
screening. A 2.4m high green coloured wire mesh fence surrounds the site.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
This is a full application for the erection of two 3-storey office buildings together with associated car
parking and alterations to the existing vehicular access, which is onto an access road to the north-west. The
total amount of floorspace created would be 5,817m2. The number of car parking spaces proposed is 194,
including 8 disabled parking spaces. Provision has also been made for 15 secure cycle stores.
Broadway, which is identified as a Country Access Route in the Revised Unitary Development Plan, is an
important link road between Eccles, Salford Quays and the countryside. The proposal includes a
landscaped zone 6m in depth fronting this road. Further landscaping is proposed fronting the access road,
and in various locations throughout the site.
The first of the proposed buildings would be set back approximately 20m from the back of the footpath on
Broadway and 2m from the back of the footpath of the access road. It would have a footprint of 39.3m X
22.8m with a three-storey glazed reception projecting 5m from the front elevation, 9m in width. The second
building would be located to the rear of the site approximately 17.5m from the rear boundary shared with
Weaste Cemetery. It would have a footprint of 51m X 19.5m, again with a three-storey glazed reception
projecting 5m, 9m in width.
The two buildings would have a similar design with pitched roofs constructed from metal cladding, and
walls constructed from brick. The windows would be white PVCu fitted with bronze-tinted anti-sun glass.
The fenestration details, with series of windows at ground, first and second floor levels, give horizontal
emphasis to the buildings. However, the three-storey glazed receptions provide a central focal point for the
buildings and a contrasting vertical emphasis. The eaves height of the buildings would be 10.4m and the
ridge height would be 14.4m.
SITE HISTORY
In 2001, planning permission was granted for the use of the land as a car park (01/42847/FUL).
In 1992, planning permission was granted for the northern portion of the site to be used for a metal and
paper processing unit with 60 car parking spaces (E/30228).
Prior to 1992 the site formed part of the larger Metroplex Business Park developed under Enterprize Zone
Powers.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Health – no objections, recommendations made.
Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections, recommendations made.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 29th July 2004.
A site notice was displayed on 26th July 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
310, 320, 400, Mallard Court, Kingfisher Court, Falcon Court, Kestral Court and
BSS Plumbing Trade Supplies, Broadway.
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Units 6-13 Modewheel Workshops, Mode Wheel Road South.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EC12/2 – Sites for Business and High-Tech Uses
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:
Other policies:
None
ST3 – Employment Supply
ST11 – Location of New Development
R5 – Countryside Access Network
E5 - Development Within Established Employment Areas.
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
DES11 – Design and Crime
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policy EC8 – Town Centre – Retail Leisure and Office Development.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the development, the design of the
development, and the impact of the development on the neighbouring users and the amenity of the area.
Principle of development
Policy EC12/2 supports the redevelopment of this land for employment uses. Policies EC3 and E5, which
seek to improve existing employment areas, and policy ST3, which seeks to provide an adequate supply of
employment land, also support the principle of the proposed development. Furthermore, the development
would see the re-use of brownfield land thus complying with criteria 2 of Policy ST11 which seeks to
prioritise the development of such land over land which has not been previously developed (greenfield
land). Given that the neighbouring uses are commercial, I am satisfied that the proposal respects the
character of the immediate surrounding area.
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Policy EC8: The policy directs office development that generates significant numbers of trips to locate
within or adjoining regional centres and near to major public transport interchanges. The development site
is adjoining the regional centre and within walking distance of the metrolink.
Design of the development
Policy DEV2 states that the Council will not normally grant planning permission for new development
unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Policy DES1 states
that development will be required to respond to its physical context. Policies DEV4 and DES11 seek to
encourage the inclusion of design measures which reduce criminal activity. Policy R5 aims at providing
good access for all people to the countryside.
The proposed buildings would be comparable in design to surrounding commercial units and in my view
are acceptable. The landscaped zone fronting Broadway is significant and would make a positive
contribution to the amenity of the Countryside Access Route. The fencing which exists would improve
security for the site in accordance with Policies DEV4 and DES11.
Policies T13 and A10 seek to achieve appropriate provision of parking for new developments. Planning
Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport and Policy A10 seek to encourage the use of more sustainable forms
of travel such as public transport, cycling and car sharing. Therefore, one of the measures encouraged is
maximum levels of parking. Under normal circumstances a development of this size would require a
parking provision of a maximum of 145 spaces, and a minimum of 15 cycle stores and 5 motorcycle spaces.
A minimum of 5% of the parking must be for disabled persons. The development proposes 186 spaces, 8
disabled spaces and 15 cycle stores. The original proposal was for 210 spaces, but this reduced following
negotiation.
Although the provision of standard parking spaces is in excess of normal requirements as detailed in the
Revised Unitary Development plan (approximately 28% more parking is proposed), consideration must be
given to the availability of public transport in the area. The nearest Metrolink stop at Broadway is 850m
from the site. The nearest bus services are on Eccles New Road with the bus stop being 1km away. The
nearest railway stations at Eccles, Salford Central and Salford Crescent are all over 2km from the site.
Although Metrolink extensions are proposed, funding issues have cast doubt on future plans. PPG13: A
Guide to Better Practice, states that only a small proportion of people will walk distances in excess of
1.6km with most people choosing walking as opposed to motorised transport for distances less than 800m
(para 2.05). The adopted car parking standards requires developments of this nature to provide 1 space per
30m2. This equates to 194 spaces, the total number proposed in this development. On balance, I am of the
opinion that the number of spaces proposed is acceptable, particularly as they are in accordance with the
standards set out in the adopted Unitary Development Plan. However, motorcycle provision and increased
disabled parking provision is required. This has been conditioned.
In addition, Policy A1 requires large developments to be accompanied by a Travel Plan as a measure to
encourage more sustainable forms of travel. The applicant has agreed to the principle of a Travel Plan and
a condition has been attached.
Impact on the neighbouring uses and amenity of the area.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in determining planning
applications including the relationship to the road network, the likely scale and type of traffic generation,
and the arrangements for servicing and access to the proposed development. This is reiterated in Policy
DES1. Policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Given that the site is located within the Metroplex Business Park where the neighbouring uses are
predominantly commercial, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the
amenity of neighbouring occupiers. I have no objections on highway grounds. The band of mature trees
provides substantial screening between the site and Weaste Cemetery. Therefore, I am satisfied that the
proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the cemetery.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The parking provision has been amended to provide for disabled, cycle and motorcycle parking.
Furthermore, the principle of a Travel Plan has been agreed with the applicant.
Increased landscaping has been secured fronting Broadway, which is identified as a Countryside
Access Route in the Revised Unitary Development Plan. This additional landscaping will improve
the amenity of the users of Broadway.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the development, the design of the
development, and the impact of the development on the neighbouring users and the amenity of the area. I
am satisfied that the use would be in keeping with the surrounding area and the site allocation of the adopted
Unitary Development Plans. I am of the opinion that the design and layout is acceptable and that the
proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.
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. The Travel Plan dated August 2004 submitted in support of this application shall be implemented and
monitored and targets met in accordance with the details within the plan.
4. 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.
5. Prior to the commencement of development a revised parking layout with a maximum of 194 parking
spaces including a minimum of 10 disabled car parking spaces together with 15 secure cycle lock-ups,
and 5 motorcycle spaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. This provision shall be marked out prior to the first occupation of the development and shall
be made available for the parking of vehicles associated with the development at all times thereafter.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site investigation report
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
for the approval of the Director of Development Services. The investigation shall address the nature,
degree and distribution of ground contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an
identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act
1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation
shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on
nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental
receptors including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the Director of Environmental 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.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. To ensure that the site is accessed in a sustainable manner in accordance with policy A1 of the Revised
Replacement City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and PPG13.
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
6. To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution.
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:
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
EC12/2 - Sites for Business and High-Tech Uses
Other policies:
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:
ST3 - Employment Supply
ST11 - Location of New Development
R5 - Countryside Access Network
E5 - Development Within Established Employment Areas.
DES1 - Respecting Context
DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
A1 - Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
DES11 - Design and Crime
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
EC8 - Town Centres, Retail, Leisure and Office Developments
3. Please find attached a copy of the letter received from the Greater Manchester Police Architectural
Liaison Officer.
APPLICATION No:
04/48794/OUT
APPLICANT:
R A Fisk And Associates Limited
LOCATION:
Land At Junction Of Emlyn Street And Harriet Street Walkden
Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the siting and means of access to one three
storey block comprising 24 apartments
WARD:
Walkden North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is currently occupied by a snooker club and associated car parking area. The site is
bounded by Emlyn Street to the north and Harriet Street to the west. There are residential properties on the
opposite side of Emlyn Street, as well as a car parking area which is the site for the new LIFT centre. There
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
is a medical centre and church on the opposite side of Harriet Street, as well as an area of vacant land. To the
south is the Stocks Hotel public house and to the east is a building associated with the adjacent car repair
business on Egerton Road. There is a row of trees along the northern boundary of the site. These are covered
by a Tree Preservation Order which, although provisional at present, is due to be confirmed in the near
future.
This application is in outline with approval sought for the siting and means of access a three storey building
comprising 24 apartments. All other matters are reserved for determination at a later date. The application
has been amended from that originally submitted in order to ensure that the trees along the northern
boundary are retained. There would be two access points into the site from Harriet Street. The proposed
building would be sited 1.8m from the western boundary and would have a 26m frontage to Harriet Street.
It would be a minimum of 14m from the northern boundary. Car parking would be provided in two areas
within the site: between the proposed building and Emlyn Street; and between the building and the southern
boundary of the site. A total of twenty four car parking spaces would be provided, including three disabled
spaces.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – recommends conditions requiring the submission and approval of a
site investigation report and a noise report
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections. Some of the issues raised by the ALO have been
addressed by the amendments made to the application. Other matters will be the subject of subsequent
reserved matters applications
Environment Agency – no objections
United Utilities – no objections provided that the proposal is drained on a separate system
PUBLICITY
A site notice was posted on 30th July 2004
A press notice was published on 29th July 2004
The following neighbour addresses have been notified:
The Cottage Tandoori, Stocks Hotel, Manchester Road
The Gill Medical Centre, Harriet Street
Vauxhall, Egerton Road
2 – 6 (E), 1 – 17 (O), Worsley Labour Party, Emlyn Hall, Emlyn Street
1, 3, 3A, Egerton Road
Walkden Congregational Church, Bolton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Insufficient car parking
Loss of privacy
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
T13 – Car Parking
EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EN10 – Protected Trees
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be: whether the principle of the
proposed development is acceptable; whether the proposed level of car parking is acceptable; whether there
would be an appropriate contribution towards open space; whether there would be any impact on the
amenity of neighbouring residents or the amenity of the area; whether the existing trees would be adversely
affected by this proposal; whether the proposal would take security and safety issues into account; and
whether the application accords with the relevant provisions of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement UDP. I shall deal with each below.
Principle of the Proposal
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 is the location of the proposed development,
including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses.
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.
The application site is surrounded by a mixture of residential and commercial uses. It is also in close
proximity to Walkden Town Centre. The majority of the surrounding residential properties are houses and
this proposal would contribute to the provision of a mix of housing tenures in the area, in accordance with
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Draft Policy H1. This application would make efficient use of a previously developed site within an urban
area, in accordance with national Government guidance. I am satisfied that the principle of the
redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is acceptable and in accordance with the above policies.
Car Parking
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 and that car parks are designed to a
high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements, surface materials, boundary treatments and
security measures.
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 24 car parking spaces would be provided within the site. This would equate to one space per
apartment. The site is located in close proximity to a number of bus stops on Manchester Road and Bolton
Road. It is also within walking distance of Walkden Town Centre and the services and facilities therein. In
light of the above and given the maximum car parking standards advocated by the Government in PPG13
and contained within the Revised UDP, I consider the proposed level of car parking to be acceptable. I have
also attached a condition requiring the provision of a cycle storage area within the site. I am satisfied that
the application 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.
Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open space
within housing developments.
Although this application is in outline, permission is sought for a total of twenty four apartments. Given the
level of information submitted at this stage, it is not possible to determine the total number of bedspaces
created by this proposal. I do however consider it reasonable to assume that a development of this number
of apartments would trigger the requirement for a financial contribution towards open space in the area. I
have therefore attached a condition requiring the application to accord with the provisions of Adopted
policies H6 and H11 and the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on Open Space. Subject
to this condition, I am satisfied that the application would make sufficient contribution to open space, in
accordance with the above policies.
Impact on Amenity
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.
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.
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
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 25.6m from the residential properties on the opposite side of Emlyn Street.
I am satisfied that this distance is sufficient to ensure that there would be no unacceptable detrimental
impact on the amenity of existing or future residents as a result of this application. There would be no
habitable room windows on the eastern gable of the proposed building and I am therefore satisfied that the
proposal would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring residents in this regard. Although approval
is not sought for design or external appearance at this stage, the layout plan indicates that there would be a
pedestrian entrance to the building from Harriet Street. I consider that, not only would this encourage
residents to make journeys on foot, but it would also present a more attractive elevation to Harriet Street. In
light of the above, I am of the opinion that the application would not have a detrimental impact on the
amenity of the area or the amenity of existing or future residents.
The closest habitable room windows to the south elevation would face towards the Stocks Public House. I
consider that having regard to the distance between the existing public house and the propsed development
together with the intervening position of the proposed car park, that there would be no significant inpact on
the amenity of future residents by way of noise or disturbance.
Trees
Adopted Policy EN7 encourages the conservation of trees and woodland through supporting the retention
of trees and aims to ensure that new tree planting is designed to contribute to landscape quality.
Draft Policy EN10 states that development which would result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to,
protected trees will not be permitted.
The application has been amended from that originally submitted in order to ensure that the trees along the
northern boundary of the site would be retained and not detrimentally affected by the proposal. The site has
been visited by the Council’s arboricultural officer, who is of the opinion that the fifteen poplar trees and
one sycamore tree along the northern boundary are worthy of retention and should therefore be protected by
a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). A provisional TPO has recently been made but is yet to be confirmed. The
building would be a minimum of 13m from the base of the trees, which is in excess of the 10m required by
the Council’s arboriculturalist. There would be a car parking area between the proposed building and the
trees. However, this area is already tarmaced and no digging would take place in this area which would
harm the trees. I have attached a condition requiring the fencing of the trees during construction. I am
therefore satisfied that the application accords with policies EN7 and EN10.
CRIME
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.
Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
I have received comments from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) in response to this
application. A number of the issues raised have been addressed through the amendments made to the
proposal. There is more natural surveillance of surrounding streets due to the proximity of the proposed
building to the back of the footpath on Harriet Street and the inclusion of an entrance into the building along
that frontage. Other matters raised by the ALO relate to boundary treatment, which would be the subject of
a separate reserved matters application. I am satisfied that the application accords with the policies DEV4
and DES11. I have however attached an informative advising the applicant of the ALO’s comments.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The application has been amended in order to retain the trees. This has also resulted in the provision of a
pedestrian entrance to the building from Harriet Street. I am of the opinion that both of the above
amendments have resulted in improvements to the scheme.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposal to be acceptable and in accordance with the relevant
policies of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I am satisfied that there would
be no unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of the area or the amenity of existing or future
residents and that the trees on the site would not be detrimentally affected. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- 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;
- 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. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the means of vehicular access
from Harriet Street have been constructed and laid out in accordance with the approved plans.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the provision of bicycle
and bin storage and waste recycling facilities 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.
5. The development hereby approved shall comply with the provisions of Adopted Policy H6 and H11 of
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance 7 Open Space Associated with New Housing Developments in respect of open space contributions
6. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
7. Standard Condition C05C No topping etc to Trees protected by TPO
8. The car parking spaces shall be laid out as shown on drawing no. 2404:04 prior to first occupation of
any of the apartments hereby approved and shall be available at all times the premises are in use
9. 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 contamination and ground gases on site and shall include an
identification and assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act
1990, Part IIA, focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation
shall also address the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on
nearby occupied building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental
receptors including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the 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 Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works
undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Director of Development
Services.
10. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a noise assessment shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The assessment should follow
PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from surrounding road networks. The assessment shall
identify all noise attenuation measures which may be determined appropriate to reduce the impact of
noise on future residents of the development hereby approved. The approved noise control measures
shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved and retained thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
4. Reason: 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 and in order to make
sufficient provision for the storage of waste and and to encourage waste recycling, in accordance with
Policy DEV1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
5. To ensure that an adequate contribution is made towards open space, in accordance with policies H6
and H11 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance 7 - Open
Space Associated with New Housing Developments
6. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
7. Standard Reason R010A Protect TPO trees
8. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
9. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
10. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied prior to
the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent renders all
development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the Council.
2. The 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; DEV2 - Good Design; H1 - Meeting Housing Needs; T13 - Car
Parking; EN7 - Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
3. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities
4. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the amended plans received on 8th September
which show the revised siting of the building
5. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Greater Manchester
Police Architectural Liaison Officer
APPLICATION No:
04/48788/FUL
APPLICANT:
Chestergate Land Ltd
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Harding Street, Blackfriars Road And Chapel Street
Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a 7 storey building incorporating basement car park, classes
A1/A2/A3 and 54 apartments over together with creation of new
vehicular access (Amendment to previous permission 03/47413/FUL)
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land bounded by Harding Street, Blackfriars Road and Chapel Street, Salford 3.
The site is currently used for the display and sale of cars. It is proposed to erect a building comprising 54
apartments with a total of 760m² of class A1/A2/A3 floor space at ground floor plus 21 car parking spaces at
basement level. The proposed building would be seven storeys in height with a small tower element
fronting Salford Approach adding an additional storey. It would be constructed predominantly in brick that
would match the adjacent ‘Flat Iron’ building and would have natural stone at ground floor level. There
would be glazed corner features and the top storey would feature glazing predominantly.
The application site is located in a mixed commercial and residential area. To the north are the railway
arches and to the south is Salford Approach. The site is bounded by Harding Street to the east and
Blackfriars Road to the west.
The site is located within the historic part of Salford, in close proximity to two conservation areas and a
number of listed buildings. On the opposite side of Blackfriars Road is the Grade II* Listed Sacred Trinity
Church, which is located within the Flat Iron Conservation Area. 62 Chapel Street and 10 & 12 and 14 & 16
Blackfriars Street are Grade II Listed Buildings. The Cathedral Conservation Area, located to the east of the
application site, is centred around Manchester Cathedral and also contains a number of listed buildings.
This application represents an amendment to an identical building that already has permission but which
proposed 45 apartments with office use at first floor level. This application provides for an additional nine
apartments in substitution for the office space at first floor.
SITE HISTORY
A planning application for an eight-storey development with a nine storey tower that comprised a total of 67
apartments was withdrawn in September 2003 as a result of my concerns regarding the design of the
building (03/46498/FUL).
An application for an identical seven-storey building comprising 45 apartments with office space at first
floor level was approved in June 2004 (03/47413/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – no objections
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – makes a number of detailed points regarding
security for residents and considers that the access to the car park from Harding Street is considered
inappropriate due to the width of the road which could result in conflicts between future residents and other
car park users.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – no objections
Director of Environmental Services – no comments received
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified of both the submitted and the amended plans:
48-62 (E), 65-89 (O) Chapel Street
Salford Trinity Church, Chapel Street
10,12-16 Blackfriars Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS4 - Exchange
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
T13 – Car Parking
EN11 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
EN12 – Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/1 – Development in Mixed Use Areas – Chapel Street East
MX2 – Chapel Street Frontage
Other policies: S2 – Retail and Leisure Development Within Town and Neighbourhood Centres
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES5 – Tall Buildings
CH4 – Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Policy SD1 – The North Western Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issue relating to this application is whether the substitution of the office space for
additional apartments is acceptable or not.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Policy CS4 states that the Exchange area of the City will be promoted for tourism, leisure and offices, and
other, related ancillary uses. The reasoned justification emphasises the need for redevelopment schemes
within this area to be of an exceptional quality and to relate well in design terms to the Cathedral and Flat
Iron Conservation Areas.
Policy DEV1 sets out 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 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 visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings.
Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the Council is satisfied
with the quality of design and appearance of the development. Developments are required to pay due regard
to existing buildings and townscape and to the character of the surrounding area.
Policy T13 states that adequate car parking should be provided to meet the needs of new development.
Policy EN11 states that the Council will seek to preserve or enhance the special character of conservation
areas.
Policy EN12 states that development which would detract from the architectural and historic character of a
Listed Building or would be detrimental to its setting or the environmental quality of the surrounding area
will not normally be permitted.
Policy MX1/1 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP identifies Chapel Street East as an area to be
developed for a mixture of uses, including housing, offices and retail, where consistent with Policy S2 of
the UDP.
Policy MX2 requires development along Chapel Street to incorporate active ground floor uses and be
consistent with other UDP policies.
Policy S2 sets out the locations where retail and leisure development will normally be considered
acceptable. The Chapel Street mixed-use area is cited as a location where retail may be considered
appropriate where there are no locations within or on the edge of town centres and where a need for the
development can be demonstrated. Retail development in the Chapel Street area would form an ancillary
part of a larger mixed use development.
Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context. In assessing the extent to which
developments comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship
to existing buildings and the scale of the proposed development in relation to its surroundings.
Policy DES5 sets out the circumstances where tall buildings will be permitted. These include where the
scale of the proposal is appropriate to its context, where it would make a positive addition to the skyline and
where there would be no unacceptable impact on the setting of a listed building or the character or
appearance of a conservation area.
Policy CH4 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would cause
unacceptable harm to the setting of a listed building.
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
I consider that the principle of residential development, incorporating ancillary A1/A2/A3 uses on the
ground floor is acceptable and appropriate in this location.
With regard to the issue that this site should be considered in the context of the wider Greengate area I am
satisfied that as the site is surrounded by either roads or the railway, the wider area will have limited impact
on the development of this site. I consider that the quality of the design of the building is of utmost
importance on this prominent site but am satisfied that the design of the building is such that it does not
prejudice the quality of the development of the wider Greengate area.
Given the site’s particularly sensitive location and the above policy requirements, a redevelopment scheme
would have to be of a high quality and relate well in design terms to the surrounding area. I am of the
opinion that this proposal would be in context with the area and that it would respect and enhance the
historic and architectural character of its surroundings. The use of appropriate materials is of the utmost
importance and therefore the use of bricks to match the adjacent listed building and natural stone are
considered essential and an important improvement to the scheme. I consider that there would be no
detrimental impact on the settings of Listed Buildings.
Regional Spatial Strategy says that within the North West Metropolitan Area, first priority will be given to
development and resources which will enhance significantly the economic strength, complimentarity of
roles, overall quality of life, environmental enhancement and social regeneration with the city centre area of
Manchester/Salford and it’s surrounding area. It will also be necessary to keep pace with international
standards, to conserve the distinctive architectural heritage of the two regional poles, to add modern
developments of high design quality, to improve the design and management of the public realm and to add
greenery. This development accords with this.
Planning permission has already been granted for an identical scheme and this alteration has no effect
whatsoever on the elevations.
The active uses at ground floor would mean that the proposal would still comply with policies MX1 and
MX2 and therefore I have no objections to the proposal.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
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. A total of £54,000 would be contributed in this
regard, on the basis of £1,000 per apartment. I am of the opinion that this sum would be appropriate and
accords with the Council’s policies in this regard.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the application is in accordance with policies CS4, DEV1, DEV2 and EN12 of the
Adopted UDP and policies DES1, DES5 and CH4 of the First Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved subject to the following conditions. Planning permission has
already been granted for an identical scheme and this proposal for an additional nine apartments replacing
proposed office space at first floor level would not have any effect on the scheme
RECOMMENDATION
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
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 £54,000;
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 do not support the aim and
objectives of the Chapel Street Regeneration Project.
(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. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall undertake an assessment to
determine the external noise level from the railway and surrounding roads that the proposed residents
will be subjected to (day and night). The developer shall detail what steps are to be taken to mitigate the
disturbances from the above. The assessment shall have due regard to the Department of the
Environment Guidance PPG 24 - Planning and Noise. The building envelope shall be capable of
attenuating the external noise to BS 8233 (Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings - Code of
practice) and World Health Organisation recommendations for a reasonable standard for living rooms /
sleeping accommodation. The assessment and mitigation measures shall be submitted for the approval
of Development Services prior to the commencement of development. Any approved mitigation
measures are to be implemented prior to occupation.
Prior to discharge of this condition, a Completion Report shall be submitted to the Director of
Development Services for approval. The Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken
on site are completed in accordance with those agreed by 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 contamination on site and shall include an identification and
assessment of the risk to receptors as defined under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA,
focusing primarily on risks to human health and controlled waters. The investigation shall also address
the implications of ground conditions on the health and safety of site workers, on nearby occupied
building structures, on services and landscaping schemes and on wider environmental receptors
including ecological systems and property.
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the 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.
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
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. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the existing vehicle access points shall be made up to adoptable
footway standards.
6. No dwelling shall be occupied until a scheme of control to and from the basement car park has been
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme as is
approved shall be used at all times.
7. No A3 retail unit shall be brought into use unless and until a detailed scheme for the extraction system
which treats fumes and odours before their emission to the atmosphere so as to render them innocuous
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall detail
how the extraction unit will be attenuated and mounted to minimise the transmission of airbourne and
structure bourne noise and vibration. The works forming the approved scheme shall be completed
entirely in accordance with the approved scheme and thereafter the works forming the approved
scheme shall at all times remain in place.
8. The hours of operation of any A3 unit shall be between the hours of 8am and 12 midnight only.
9. Before any A3 use commences a litter bin shall be provided in accordance with details of its design and
siting, to be approved in writing by the Director of Development Services, and shall be maintained
thereafter at all times.
10. No development shall commence until a scheme for recycling facilities has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme as is approved shall be
implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
6. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
7. Standard Reason R027A Amenity and quietude
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
8. Standard Reason R027A Amenity and quietude
9. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
10. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
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:
CS4 - Exchange
DEV1 - Development Criteria
DEV2 - Good Design
T13 - Car Parking
EN11 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
EN12 - Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
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.
APPLICATION No:
04/48823/FUL
APPLICANT:
Mr J Kamali
LOCATION:
8 Vine Street Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Demolish existing building and erection of a new four storey building
comprising 19 apartments with assoc.carparking together with
alterations to existing vehicular access and landscaping (re-submission
of planning application 03/46570/FUL)
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to existing offices premises on Nevile Road. The site is surrounded on all sides by
residential property and vehicular access is gained from Vine Street that runs to the rear of the property.
The site is split level with the Vine Street level being 3m lower than the Nevile Street ground level.
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
The existing building is two storey to the Nevile Road elevation and three storey to the Vine Street
elevation. The proposed development would provide a total of 19 apartments and would be set back from
the Nevile Road frontage by 5.5m and would be further away from the houses on Nevile Road than the
existing building which is just 2.5m from the road. The building would be 23m away and 2m lower from
these houses which stand in an elevated position on the north side of Nevile Road.
The building would have three storeys on the Nevile Road frontage and four on Vine Street and the first
floor of the property would also appear as the ground floor from Nevile Road.
The building would be flat roofed and of contemporary design and would have a total height comparable
with the adjacent dwelling at 123 Nevile Road. This adjacent house has a single storey side extension close
to the common boundary with this development that is surrounded on two sides by a 2.4m high leylandii
hedge. A total of 31 car parking spaces would be provided.
This development represents an amendment to an original scheme that was refused by the Panel and
dismissed on appeal. The building is principally rectangular in plan with apartments arranged around an
internal top lit glazed courtyard in which the main communal vertical circulation is accommodated. The
rectangular plan form is modelled by the recessed balconies and projecting bedrooms of each apartment.
Pedestrian access can be gained to the building from both Nevile Road and Vine Street. This revised
scheme omits balconies from the second floor on the Nevile Road frontage and reduces the number of
apartments by two. The revised proposal is identical in all other respects.
The neighbouring apartment building, The Mount, Vine Street, is three storeys in height and is situated at
the Nevile Road ground level making it of a similar height to the proposed building.
There are a total of eight trees on the site that are protected by Tree Preservation Order, these are on the
Nevile Road frontage and on the eastern boundary to the Nevile Road part of the site. In addition there are
another twelve trees within or very close to the boundaries of the site. Those within the boundary of the
adjacent apartments are covered by TPO and are approximately 3m higher than the adjacent ground level
within the site to the rear of the plot.
SITE HISTORY
Members will recall that planning permission was refused for a similar scheme comprising 21 apartments in
November 2003 (03/46570/FUL). The application was refused on the grounds that it would have a
significant detrimental effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents as a result of overlooking and loss of
privacy. A subsequent appeal against this decision was dismissed in July 2004.
The Inspector agreed with the City Council that the proposal was unacceptable on grounds of overlooking
that would arise from balconies fronting Nevile Road.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections in principle.
Director of Environmental Health – No objections.
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Greater Manchester Police – No objections in principle but have a number of detailed concerns and provide
advice.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
123 and 118 to 136 Nevile Road
5 and 6 The Drive
1 to 22 The Mount, Vine Street
13 to 19 Vine Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received three letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:Noise and general disturbance
Overbearing
Loss of privacy
Noise and highway problems during construction
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DEV10 Broughton Park Development Control Policy
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, EN7 Conservation of Trees and
Woodlands.
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, EN10 Protected Trees
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the acceptability of this design, whether or not the
proposal complies with development plan policies and whether the changes that have been made to the
scheme are sufficient to warrant approval of the application.
Principle of the Development
Policy DEV10 states that the City Council will only grant planning permission for development in
Broughton Park where a number of criteria have been satisfied. These criteria include that the development
would maintain the predominantly residential character of the area, that in the case of the redevelopment of
existing properties, it can be demonstrated that the existing property cannot be retained and converted
economically for an acceptable alternative use appropriate to the residential character of the area and that in
the case of residential development due regard has been had to matters of siting, design and height of
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
buildings, facing materials, provision of car parking, the protection of trees, the provision of landscaping
and access requirements.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. Such factors include the size and density of the proposed development, the likely scale and
type of traffic generation, the amount of car parking provision, the effect on neighbouring properties, the
visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its surroundings and the impact on existing
trees.
Policy EN7 and draft policy EN10 state that the City Council will encourage the retention of trees and
woodlands.
Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will only grant planning permission if it is satisfied with the
quality of design and the appearance of the development.
With regard to policy DEV10 the purpose of the policy as stated in the reasoned justification is to ensure
that the residential character of the area is retained and that older properties are retained where possible.
This proposal would enhance the residential character of the area by introducing a residential use in place of
an office use. It does not relate to the replacement of an older property but to the replacement of a
comparatively modern property that exhibits none of the features that the policy seeks to retain in requiring
existing properties to be retained and converted rather than replaced.
I am satisfied that the building has been designed to a high standard and will be an enhancement of the local
area.
I am similarly satisfied that there would be no effect on any protected trees and that the development
complies with the City Council’s supplementary planning guidance on trees.
The Inspectors Decision
The Inspector clearly states that the proposed use of balcony screens would overcome any loss of privacy at
the adjacent dwelling number 123 Nevile Road. However, she also states that the position of the top floor
balconies and their proximity to 128 and 130 Nevile Road, when combined with the difference in levels,
would be too close and would allow direct views into the front habitable rooms of these properties.
There were no other reasons that contributed towards the Inspectors decision.
The Amended Scheme
The proposal now is for two fewer apartments. The balconies facing Nevile Road have been removed from
the top floor and while there are no other alterations this has meant that there are now just two larger
apartments on the top floor of the building. There will remain to be balconies at lower floors on the Nevile
Road frontage but the Inspector was clear that these did not represent a significant loss of amenity to
neighbours.
I consider therefore that the reasons for refusal of the application and dismissal of the appeal have been
addressed.
Other Issues
Noise and disturbance during construction are an inevitable consequence of demolition and building and I
do not consider that beyond this there would be any significant loss of amenity as a result of noise or
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
disturbance generated by future residents of this development. I do not consider that having addressed the
specific issues raised by the Inspector, that there are further significant detrimental effects on neighbours as
a result of loss of privacy or any overbearing effect of the proposal.
I have no objections on highway grounds and consider that appropriate levels of car parking have been
provided.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with policies H6 and H11 and draft policy H8 the applicant has agreed to the applicant has
agreed to make a financial contribution towards children’s play equipment and open space. A total of
£49,944 would be contributed in this regard. I am of the opinion that this sum would be appropriate and
accords with the Council’s policies in this regard.
CONCLUSION
An almost identical building was refused by the Panel on the grounds of the effect on neighbours through
overlooking and loss of privacy. A subsequent appeal was dismissed and the Inspector identified the
specific causes of the overlooking and loss of privacy. The applicant has addressed these issues and I
therefore consider that the development is acceptable and complies with policies of the development plan.
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. Standard Condition C04X Fencing of Trees protected by T.P.O.
4. 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.
5. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
6. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the screening of balconies to prevent
overlooking of 123 Nevile Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of
Development Services. Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the
occupation of any residential unit.
7. No flat roof shall be used as a balcony or for any sitting out at any time and there shall be no alterations
to any windows or doors in order to facilitate access to these flat roof areas facing Nevile Road.
8. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of recycling facilities has been
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme as is
approved shall be implemented in full prior to the erection of any dwelling.
(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. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
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. 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.
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
5. Historical maps identify landform features within the site, thereby indicating the possibility of waste
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
disposal, infilling or land levelling operations. The potential for ground contamination within the site
cannot be discounted. As a precaution, I would therefore advise, that once works commence on site,
should site operatives discover any adverse ground conditions and suspect it to be contaminated, they
should report this to the Site Manager. Works in that location should cease and the problem area should
be roped off until representative soil samples are sent for analysis and the results assessed by an officer
of the Directorate of Environmental Services who can then advise on appropriate action.
APPLICATION No:
04/48813/FUL
APPLICANT:
Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust
LOCATION:
Land To The Rear Of Stott Lane Nursery School Stott Lane Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of single storey nursery
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the former special nursery on Stott Lane opposite Hope Hospital. It is
proposed to provide a 60 place nursery on land to the rear of the existing nursery building. The building
would be a Portakabin modular building finished in bright colours appropriate to its use as a nursery. The
walls would be mainly yellow and tangerine with light brown detailing. The building would be located
within an existing 2.4m high steel palisade fence that runs around the existing nursery. A new section of
similar fencing would separate the new nursery from the old one that would be retained.
The building would be located 8m from the rear of gardens of houses on Meadowgate Road. It would be
orientated so that the main play areas would be located on the far side of the building away from residential
properties.
Access would be as existing via a private road located between residential properties and the site of the
proposed new nursery. The access road would be 3.0m wide with a 1.2m footpath on one side. The existing
hardstanding to the rear of the site would provide dropping off space and parking space for staff.
The building would provide nursery education for children of staff at Hope Hospital. The applicant has
stated that the existing nursery cannot meet national standards for full daycare for under 8s. The proposed
hours would be from 7.00am to 9.30pm Mondays to Fridays.
It is stated that the application is for a temporary period up to the end of March 2010.
SITE HISTORY
Planning permission was granted in May 1999 for an additional three portable buildings within the grounds
of the existing nursery building (99/39095/DEEM3).
CONSULTATIONS
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Director of Environmental Services – The proposed development is located immediately adjacent to a
former landfill site that is now occupied by the Stott Lane playing fields. The site allegedly took incinerator
waste and ash from Hope Hospital during the 1950s and 1960s and as such there is both a risk from ground
and gas contamination. It is therefore recommended that a condition be attached with regard to a site
investigation.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
111 to 137 Meadowgate Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 64 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The
following issues have been raised:Detrimental to visual amenity
Appearance is out of character with residential properties
Noise
Traffic congestion
Light pollution
Access is inadequate
It should be located within the hospital grounds
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, T13 Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:DES1 Respecting Context, 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 proposed extension would have a
significant detrimental effect on neighbouring residents.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. Such factors include the effect on neighbouring residents.
Draft policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact on the amenity of the occupiers of other developments.
The proposed building would be 8m from the boundary with neighbouring houses and 19m from the closest
dwelling. The building has been oriented so that main play areas are on the other side of the building to the
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
existing dwellings. The site has operated for some considerable time as a nursery and this application does
not extend the site area. The Director of Environmental Services has no objections to the development on
the grounds of noise and I have no objections on highway grounds as the proposed access is acceptable and
there is adequate space for dropping off and staff car parking.
I am satisfied therefore that there would be no significant detrimental effect on any neighbouring property
as a result of this development.
The building is purpose designed and it is appropriate that will look like a nursery and while this is different
from neighbouring buildings I do not consider that it is inappropriate. The buildings would also be screened
by existing trees and fencing. Members will be aware that the Hospital is seeking to redevelop its site by
replacing its old Victorian wards with modern buildings. Such a redevelopment will place accommodation
at a premium and I do not consider it appropriate to attempt to locate the nursery within the main hospital
grounds.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the main issue is the effect on neighbours. I am satisfied that the building has been designed
to minimise the impact on neighbouring residents and I am satisfied that there would be no significant
detrimental effect on any neighbour or on any interest of acknowledged importance. I consider that the
development accords with the policies of the development plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
3. The temporary building hereby approved shall be removed on or before 31st March 2010 and the site
shall be restored to its condition immediately prior to the commencement of development unless a
further permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority.
4. No development shall commence until a scheme for the external lighting of the site has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme as is approved shall
be implemented in full prior to the use of the building commencing.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
3. Standard Reason R020A Future redevelopment
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
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
APPLICATION No:
04/48821/FUL
APPLICANT:
Williams Tarr Developments
LOCATION:
Wharfside Irlam Wharf Road Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 16 light industrial/warehouse units (Class B1 (C), B2 and B8
uses) together with creation of new vehicular access and associated
carparking and servicing
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a vacant 1.47 hectare site with the A57 Cadishead Way to the north-west, Irlam
Wharf Road and an industrial unit to the south-east and industrial buildings to the west. The surrounding
area is made up of predominantly employment related uses that form the Northbank Industrial Estate.
Approximately 95m to the west is the Manchester Ship Canal which forms the boundary with Trafford
MBC.
This is a full application for the erection of 16 light industrial / warehouse units (Class B1 (c), B2 and B8
uses). The total amount of floor space created would be 6,631sq. m. The proposal also includes the
creation of a new vehicular access onto Irlam Wharf Road, and landscaped zones fronting Cadishead Way
and Irlam Wharf Road. (approximately 6m in depth taking into account the existing mature landscaping
which exists along Cadishead Way). The number of car parking spaces proposed is 90, which includes 16
disabled spaces.
The 16 industrial units would be located around the fringes of the site and would front onto the new
‘T-shaped’ access road. There would be three main blocks of units, with only one unit situated on its own,
in the north-east corner of the site. The size of the units would vary from 284m2 to 595m2. The units would
be designed with monoplane sloping roofs which would increase in height from 6.4m to 8.6m at the front.
The walls and roofs of the development would be constructed of metal cladding, with the walls being
constructed from two different colours to add interest to the design.
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
SITE HISTORY
In 2003, outline planning permission was approved for B1, B2 and B8 uses with all matters reserved
(03/45992/OUT).
In 2001, planning permission was approved for the erection of 2.4m palisade security fencing
(01/42274/FUL).
In 1996, planning permission was approved for the erection of distribution warehouse (B8) with ancillary
offices, trailer and car parking and the creation of new access/egress points onto proposed Irlam Wharf
Road extension (96/35170/TPDC).
In 1995, planning permission was approved for the reclaiming of land for future development
(95/33608/TPDC)
CONSULTATIONS
Northbank Management Company – no comments received.
Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections, recommendations made.
Health and Safety Executive – no objections.
Manchester Ship Canal Company – no comments received
Trafford MBC – In support of the application.
Greater Manchester Transport Executive – no objection, recommendations made.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 5th August 2004.
A site notice was displayed on 2nd August 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
MAN Manchester Limited, Irlam Wharf Road
United Parcel Services (UPS), Cadishead Way
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
EC13/31 – Sites for Industry and Warehousing
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
7th October 2004
E3/9 – Sites for Employment Development
A9/6 – Provision of New Highways
ST3 – Employment Supply
E5 - Development Within Established Employment Areas.
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
DES11 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the development, the design of the
development, the impact of the development on the neighbouring users, and the impact of the development
on the construction of the A57-A6144 link road and lift bridge (Policy A6/9).
Principle of development
Policies EC13/31 and E3/9 both support the redevelopment of this land for employment uses. Policy E5,
which seeks to improve existing employment areas, and policy ST3, which seeks to provide an adequate
supply of employment land, also support the principle of the proposed development. Given that outline
planning permission has already been granted (03/45992/OUT), I am satisfied that the principle of
development is acceptable.
Design of the development
Policy DEV2 states that the Council will not normally grant planning permission for new development
unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Policy DES1 states
that development will be required to respond to its physical context.
The proposed units would be comparable in design to surrounding industrial units and in my view are
acceptable. I am satisfied that the landscaped zones proposed are adequate, and would soften the visual
impact of the development.
Policies T13 and A10 seek to achieve appropriate provision of parking for new developments. Planning
Policy Guidance Note 13 – Transport and Policy A10 seek to encourage the use of more sustainable forms
of travel such as public transport, cycling and car sharing. Therefore, one of the measures encouraged is
maximum levels of parking. I am satisfied with the provision proposed, but feel that motorcycle and
bicycle provision needs to be incorporated. This has therefore been conditioned.
In addition, Policy A1 requires large developments to be accompanied by a Travel Plan as a measure to
encourage more sustainable forms of travel. The applicant has agreed to the principle of a Travel Plan and
a condition has been attached.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 seek to encourage the inclusion of design measures which reduce criminal
activity. The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has stipulated that a good secure boundary treatment is
required for the development. A landscaping condition has been attached which requires details of fencing
to be agreed. A copy of the letter from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer will be forwarded to the
applicant.
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Impact of development on the neighbouring users
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors in determining planning
applications including the relationship to the road network, the likely scale and type of traffic generation,
and the arrangements for servicing and access to the proposed development. This is reiterated in Policy
DES1. Policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments.
Given that the site is located within an existing industrial area, I am satisfied that the proposal would not
have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. I have no objections on highway
grounds, given that the width of the access road proposed has been widened to 7.5m following negotiation.
Impact of the development on the construction of the A57-A6144 link road and lift bridge (Policy
A6/9)
Policy E3/9 makes reference to the safeguarding of the route for a proposed link road across the Manchester
ship canal from the A6144 Manchester Road in Trafford to Irlam Wharf Road/A57 Cadishead Way in
Salford. The proposed route of this link road runs through the application site.
The Salford Review UDP was amended at the Revised Deposit Draft stage to include a site-specific
reference to this proposed road link on the proposals map. However at the Pre-Inquiry Changes stage this
policy has been amended due to the uncertainty to what route the proposed road link should take. The road
link has now been removed from the proposals map and the plan now refers to a none site-specific policy
that would allow for the provision of this link road under certain criteria. As the Council no longer have a
precise route for the proposed link road there are a number of different options being explored by Salford
and Trafford MBC.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The parking provision has been amended to provide for cycle and motorcycle parking.
Furthermore, the principle of a Travel Plan has been agreed with the applicant.
The access road has been increased in width in the interests of highway safety.
CONCLUSION
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the development, the design of the
development, the impact of the development on the neighbouring users, and the impact of the development
on the construction of the A57-A6144 link road and lift bridge (Policy A6/9). I am satisfied that the use
would be in keeping with the surrounding area and the site allocations for both the adopted and replacement
Unitary Development Plans. I am of the opinion that the design and layout is acceptable and that the
proposed link road will not be affected by the proposal. I therefore recommend approval.
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.
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
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 12months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. The Travel Plan dated September 2004 submitted in support of this application shall be implemented
and monitored and targets met in accordance with the details within the Plan.
5. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of
foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme
shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans.
6. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a desk study has been
undertaken and agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services to investigate and produce
an assessment of the risk of the potential for on-site contamination. If the desk study identifies potential
contamination a detailed site investigation should be carried out to establish the degree and nature of
the contamination and its potential to pollute the environment or cause harm to human health. If
remediation measures are necessary they will be implemented in accordance with the assessment and to
the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
7. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface
water drainage from vehicle parking shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed
to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through
the interceptor.
8. Prior to the commencement of development a revised parking layout with a minimum of 16 disabled
car parking spaces, 32 secure cycle lock-ups, and 6 motorcycle spaces shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. This provision shall be marked out prior
to the first occupation of the development and shall be made available for the parking of vehicles
associated with the development at all times thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. To ensure that the site is accessed in a sustainable manner in accordance with policy A1 of the Revised
Replacement City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and PPG13.
5. To ensure a satisfactory means of drainage.
6. To ensure a safe form of development that poses no unacceptable risk of pollution.
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
7. To prevent pollution of the water environment.
8. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
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:
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
EC13/31 - Sites for Industry and Warehousing
Other policies:
DEV1 - Development Criteria
DEV2 - Good Design
DEV4 - Design and Crime
T13 - Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
E3/9 - Sites for Employment Development
A9/6 - Provision of New Highways
Other policies:
ST3 - Employment Supply
E5 - Development Within Established Employment Areas.
DES1 - Respecting Context
DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
A1 - Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
DES11 - Design and Crime
2. Please find attached a copy of the letter from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer.
APPLICATION No:
04/48847/FUL
APPLICANT:
Pinetree Developments (Salford) Limited
LOCATION:
Site Bounded By Lupton Street Ford Street Cleminson Street And
Melville Street Salford 3
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part four storey/part five storey block comprising of 54
apartments with car parking at basement level (Amendment to
previous application 00/40723/FUL)
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a site at the junction of Ford Street and Cleminson Street, off Chapel Street,
within the Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area. The site has been vacant for some time and is
bounded by Lupton Street to the south, Ford street to the east, Melville Street to the west and Cleminson
Street to the north.
Beyond Lupton Street planning permission has been granted for a multi-storey car park in association with
the redevelopment of the former Education offices and Cathedral House as a diocesan centre for the
Catholic Diocese of Salford. Opposite the site on Ford Street is the Listed Magistrates Court.
It is proposed to erect a part five part, part four storey building on the site. The building would face each of
the road frontages and would have an internal courtyard. Vehicular access to basement car parking would
be from Cleminson Street via Melville Street. A total of 54 apartments and 42 car parking spaces would be
provided. Of these apartments 32 would have two bedrooms and 22 would have a single bedroom.
The building would be faced in brick, render and stone.
SITE HISTORY
Conservation Area Consent was granted for the demolition of a former public house, manufacturing works
and associated outbuildings on the site in January 2000 (99/40092/CON).
Planning permission was granted for a development of 41 apartments on this site in a three, four and five
storey building in June 2000 (00/40723/FUL). The development that is now proposed adds an additional
storey to this previous permission.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No comments to date
Greater Manchester Police – No comments to date
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No comments to date
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
St Johns Cathedral
20 to 40 Trinity Court
1 to 12 Drayton House Cleminson Street
Magistrates Court Ford Street
1 to 4 and 30 to 36 Rosamund Street
1 to 11 and 15 to 21 Mayan Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:Out of character with the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: CS1 Central Salford, EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, T13 Car
Parking, DEV2 Good Design
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1 Development in Mixed Use Areas, CH5 Works Within Conservation Areas
Other policies: A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking Within New Developments, DES1
Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the design and appearance of the building
is acceptable in this location.
Policy EN11 states that the City Council will seek to preserve or enhance the special character of areas of
architectural and historic interest and that regard will be had to a number of factors when considering
planning applications in conservation areas. These factors include encouraging high standards of
development that are in keeping with the character of the area.
Policy CH5 states that development within conservation areas will only be allowed where it would preserve
or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. In determining this, regard will be had to
a number of factors that include whether or not the proposal is of a high standard of design, consistent with
the design policies of the plan, whether it secures environmental improvements and enhancements and
whether it protects and improves important views within, into and out of the conservation area.
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 DES1 states that development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect the positive
character of the local area in which it is situated and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness.
In assessing the extent to which any development complies with this policy regard will be had to a number
90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
of factors. These factors include the relationship to existing buildings, the street scene and the quality of
proposed materials and their appropriateness to both the location and the type of development.
I am satisfied that the design of the development is appropriate to its location. In adding an extra storey to
a scheme that already has permission the development will relate well to the adjacent car park that has
recently received permission. I also consider that the building will relate well to the adjacent court building
and that the use of brick render and stone is appropriate.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
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. A total of £13,000 would be contributed in this
regard, on the basis of £1,000 per apartment over those that already have planning permission. I am of the
opinion that this sum would be appropriate and accords with the Council’s policies in this regard. In
addition, in accordance with policies H6 and H11 and draft policy H8, the applicant has agreed to make a
financial contribution towards children’s play equipment and open space. A total of £79,818 would be
contributed in this regard in accordance with the City Council’s normal requirements.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the main issue is whether the building is of sufficiently high quality in this location within the
conservation area. I am mindful that planning permission has already been granted for a similar scheme and
I am satisfied that the additional storey will improve the contribution that this building makes to the local
area. I am satisfied that the development is in accordance with the policies of the development plan.
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, environmental improvements in the local area and children’s play equipment
and informal open space to the value of £92,818;
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 do not support the aim and
objectives of the Chapel Street Regeneration Project and Policy H6 and H11
(Conditions)
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Standard Condition D03X Samples of Materials
3. Standard Condition F05D Provision of Parking
91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
4. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
5. No development shall commence until a scheme for recycling facilities has been submitted to and
agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme as is approved shall be
implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
3. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
4. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
5. 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 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:
DEV1 Development Criteria
APPLICATION No:
04/48844/TPO
APPLICANT:
J S Wood
LOCATION:
Land At Side Of 44 Sapling Road Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Fell two poplars (T1,T2), one hawthorn (T5), one sycamore (T11) and
one lime (T14). Crown raise to 5m one birch (T8), one ash (T9), one oak
(T10) and one lime (T13). Crown clean one oak (T10). Remove basal
growth from one lime
92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
7th October 2004
Swinton South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a large plot of land at the end of Sapling Road which accommodates a number of
mature trees that are protected by the City of Salford Tree Preservation Order Number 16, 1994.
Consent is sought for the felling of 2 poplars (T1 and T2), 1 hawthorn (T5), 1 sycamore (T11) and 1 lime
tree (T14) as well as for the crown raising of 1 birch (T8), 1 ash (T9), 1 oak (T10) and 1 lime (T13) to 5
metres and the crown cleaning of 1 oak (T10). The removal of basal growth from 1 lime tree (T13) is also
proposed.
SITE HISTORY
In November 1993 an application was received for the erection of one pair of semi-detached houses with
detached garages on the site, reference 93/31938/FUL.
This application was refused on the 21st of September on the basis that “The proposed development would
result in the loss of mature trees and a pleasant area of open space which would be detrimental to the
amenity of the area”.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
30, 32, 34, 36, 38,40, 42 and 44 Sapling Road
15, 17, 19 and 21 Folly Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 38 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity and
a petition with 75 signatures. The following issues have been raised The application has been submitted in order to clear the site for future development.
The site is one of few opens areas within Salford and as such it should be retained.
The works would have an adverse impact upon the wildlife that inhabits the site.
Some of the proposed works are unnecessary.
Some of the trees that the applicant has applied to do works to lie beyond the boundaries of the site
– permission of the landowners would therefore required for any works.
The purpose of this application is to seek consent for work to protected trees. It is not part of any submission
for planning permission. As such the Panel can only consider the merits of the proposed work irrespective
of any future planning application submissions.
The ownership of the trees is a private issue, which should be resolved by the applicant and the landowners.
Ownership of the trees is not a material consideration when determining this application.
93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EN7 – Conservation of Trees and Woodlands
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy EN7 of the Unitary Development Plan; Conservation of Trees and Woodlands states that the City
Council will encourage the conservation of trees and woodland by supporting the retention of trees, woods,
copses and hedgerows as trees are of considerable ecological, recreational, educational and landscape value
within both the rural and urban environment.
The Council’s Senior Arboriculture Officer has inspected the trees and has made the following comments
and recommendations –
Number
Species
Comments
Recommendation
T1
Poplar
T2
Poplar
Approve - fell and
replace with 2 trees
Approve - fell and
replace with 2 trees
T5
Hawthorn
T8
Birch
Cavity at 1.5m. Weak Bifurication.
Pollarded in past – new growth is unstable.
Growing at a severe angle. Bifuricated at
40” = point of weakness. Minimum works
to make this tree stable = pollarding. This
practice is not however recommended –
practice is contrary to BS standards.
The tree does not appear to be unstable.
The tree could be pruned to alleviate the
slight damage caused by the fallen poplar.
The tree is not over-mature. It is a mature
tree with at least another 25 year lifespan
Perfect tree for this mixed woodland area.
Cannot justify the pruning of the tree even
to 5m as pruning can allow the ingress of
fungi and should therefore only be
undertaken when necessary
Number
Species
Comments
Recommendation
T9
Ash
Refuse
works.
proposed
T10
Oak
Perfect tree for this mixed woodland area.
This trees branches are already at 5m.
There are some branches which dangle
below the 5m point but I cannot justify
further pruning in this setting as pruning
can allow the ingress of fungi.
Crossed branches are a common feature.
I would not recommend the removal of
crossing branches already grafted to the
tree – it could open the tree up possibly
Refuse
raising,
removal
growth.
crown
approve
of basal
94
Refuse
felling
-formatively prune
and rectify any
broken branches.
Refuse
works.
proposed
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
T11
Sycamore
T13
Lime
T14
Lime
7th October 2004
allowing the ingress of fungi. What is the
benefit to the tree?
Tree is not a perfect specimen but in the
current setting the tree provides a good
facility for wildlife.
It is not dangerous – there is no apparent
basal decay, its roots have not been
adversely affected by fungal activity.
Rubbing branches is not a reason to fell.
Refuse works.
Mr
Woods
contractor
to
provide evidence of
decay by cleaning
out cavity using a
rubber hammer and
chisel
Not a prime specimen.
Approve proposed
Agree to pruning – people would benefit works.
from the works – less shade in garden
Numerous cavities in the tree, which Approve felling.
render it unstable
Replace with 2
trees.
The objectors have also submitted a series of comments on the health of the trees. The objectors contend
that the proposed felling of the two poplar trees is unnecessary and they should be maintained as they
provide a valuable habitat for wildlife. Whilst this maybe the case I cannot recommend that these trees
remain on site as the trees have been identified by the Council’s arborist as being unstable and therefore
given their location, in close proximity to Sapling Road they are a potential hazard to people. The objectors
also state that the works to the lime tree T13 are unnecessary and are only being proposed to ensure that the
tree would not be damaged by any future development. As stated previously whether the site is going to be
subject to a planning application is immaterial when determining this application and therefore works
cannot be refused on this basis. The crown raising of this tree to 5m, whilst not necessary for the tree would
be beneficial to the occupants of 44 Sapling Road and therefore is acceptable as it would not have an
adverse impact upon the health of the tree. The objectors’ comments on T14 do not tally with the trees on
site.
In order to conserve the treescape in the area in line with EN7 the trees that need to be felled will be
replaced on a two for one basis. The clearance of non-protected trees on the site is however beyond the
Council’s control as the site is privately owned.
CONCLUSION
I recommend the proposed felling of the 2 poplar trees (T1 and T2) and 1 of the lime trees (T14) is approved
as they are unstable and a potential hazard to people. The proposed crown raising of the other lime tree and
the removal of its basal growth (T13) should also be approved, as it would be beneficial to the occupants of
44 Sapling Road.
The proposed felling of the hawthorn (T5) and the sycamore (T11) and the proposed crown raising of 1
birch (T8), 1 ash (T9), 1 oak (T10) and 1 lime (T13) to 5 metres and the crown cleaning of 1 oak would
seriously injure the amenity of the area contrary to Policy EN7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
Plan and therefore I recommend that these works be refused as insufficient evidence has been provided to
justify these works.
95
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
Split decision Subject to the following Conditions
Part A
Approve the proposed felling of the 2 poplar trees (T1 and T2) and 1 of the lime trees (T14) as they are
unstable and a potential hazard to people.
Approve the proposed crown raising of the other lime tree and the removal of its basal growth (T13) as it
would be beneficial to the occupants of 44 Sapling Road.
(Conditions)
1. Standard Condition C08T Time Limit - tree work
2. Standard Condition C09T British Standard - tree work
3. During the first available planting season following the felling of the 2 poplars (T1 and T2) and the 1
lime (T14) hereby granted consent, they shall be replaced on a two for 1 basis. The proposed species,
sizes and locations shall be submitted and approved in writing by the by the Director if Development
Services.
4. If the replacement trees dies or are removed within 5 years of planting, they shall be replaced within 12
months of removal or death to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R035A Situation to be reviewed
2. Standard Reason R036A Good aboricultural practice
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Part B
Refuse the proposed felling of the hawthorn (T5) and the sycamore (T11) and the proposed crown raising
of 1 birch (T8), 1 ash (T9), 1 oak (T10) and 1 lime (T13) to 5 metres and the crown cleaning of 1 oak
1. The proposed felling of the hawthorn (T5) and the sycamore (T11) protected by the City of Salford Tree
Preservation Order No. 168 would seriously injure the amenity of the area contrary to Policy EN7 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan. Insufficient evidence has been provided to justify the
removal of these trees.
96
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
2. The proposed pruning of the birch (T8), ash (T9), oak (T10) and lime (T13) protected by the City of
Salford Tree Preservation Order No. 168 would not be good arboricultural practice and therefore
could be detrimental to the trees and consequently to the amenity of the area, contrary to Policy EN7 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
APPLICATION No:
04/48883/FUL
APPLICANT:
The O'Connor Munro Group
LOCATION:
157/159 Bury Old Road Salford 8
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey rear extension to create six additional flats
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing pair of Victorian semi-detached properties that have been subdivided
into apartments. It is proposed to refurbish the property and add a two storey extension to the rear of the
property to provide an additional six apartments making a total of eighteen.
The proposed extension would be two storey and would have bedrooms in the roofspace. It would measure
approximately 19.5m by 10m and would be constructed in brick with a pitched tiled roof. There would be
feature brickwork to match the existing building.
Access would be as existing and a total of 11 car parking spaces would be provided.
There are a number of trees that are protected by preservation order to the front of the property. These are
unaffected by the development but it is proposed to extend an existing car parking area to provide an
additional two parking spaces and a geoweb surface is proposed. A lightwell is to be provided to the front
of the property that will be surrounded by railings. Three unprotected trees to the rear of the site would be
removed.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Is concerned about bedrooms being located next to living rooms but if
exchanging the rooms is not possible then it is recommended that a condition be attached regarding acoustic
insulation.
PUBLICITY
97
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2 and 3 Oakwell Mansions
15 and 19 Oakwell Drive
1 and 2 Pearl Avenue
1 to 12 Bristol Court
174 to 184 Bury Old Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received six letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:Overlooking
Loss of privacy
Insufficient car parking
Antisocial behaviour from existing tenants
Loss of light
Access is poor at present and more flats will make it worse
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV10 Broughton Park Development
Control Policy, T13 Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies:DES1 Respecting Context, 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 proposed extension would have a
significant detrimental effect on neighbouring residents.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. Such factors include the effect on neighbouring residents.
Policy DEV10 states that the City Council will only grant permission in the Broughton Park area where a
number of criteria apply. These criteria include that due regard has been had to siting, design and height of
buildings.
Draft policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable
impact on the amenity of the occupiers of other developments.
98
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
The proposed extension would be 13m from the side boundary with neighbouring houses and 8.5m from the
side boundary with the adjacent flats. The proposed extension would face the car park of the flats. The
rooms in the roof space are only served by velux windows and the first floor windows are much lower than
the first floor windows in the existing property as a result of the much lower floor to ceiling heights. To the
rear of the site the proposed building would be 6.5m from the common boundary with residential properties
beyond. There would be no windows in this elevation.
I am satisfied that there would be no significant loss of privacy, overlooking or loss of light as a result of
this development.
I have no objections on highway grounds. I am satisfied that sufficient car parking spaces have been
provided on the site which lies on a main bus route corridor.
The issue of current tenants behaviour is not a material planning consideration but I consider that the
refurbishment of the property would result in the current situation being improved rather than made worse.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Pre-application discussions were held with the applicant that have resulted in an improved planning
submission.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the main issue is the effect on neighbours. I am satisfied that the extension has been designed
to minimise the impact on neighbouring residents and I am satisfied that there would be no significant
detrimental effect on any neighbour or on any interest of acknowledged importance. I consider that the
development accords with the policies of the development plan.
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. Standard Condition F03X Surfacing
4. No development shall commence until a scheme for acoustic insulation between the bedroom of flat 4
and the living room of flat 10 has been submitted to and approved by the Director of Development
Services. Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of either flat.
5. 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.
99
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
6. No development shall commence until a scheme for external lighting of the site has been submitted to
and agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services. Such scheme as is approved shall be
implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
7. No development shall commence until details of the fence around the lightwell have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The approved fence shall be erected
within six months of the commencement of development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. 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:
DEV1 Development Criteria
DEV10 Broughton Park Development Control Policy
APPLICATION No:
04/49003/FUL
APPLICANT:
B Maloney
LOCATION:
Worsley Park Motor Co. Ltd 314 Walkden Road Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a three storey building comprising ten apartments together
100
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
with associated car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden South
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is currently in used for car sales. It currently comprises a single storey office building
and a large forecourt where vehicles are displayed. The application site is bounded by Walkden Road to the
west and Mesne Lea Road to the south. To the east is an alley, beyond which is a residential property. To the
north is an MOT business. The remainder of the surrounding area comprises residential properties,
including terraced and semi-detached dwellings. Vehicular access into the site is currently gained from
Mesne Lea Road.
The proposed building would be three storeys in height. It would be a minimum of 3.4m from the back of
the footpath on Walkden Road and would be 10m wide. It would have a 28m frontage to Walkden Road. It
would be 6.8m to the eaves and 10m to the ridge. A total of ten car parking spaces would be provided to the
rear of the proposed building and vehicular access into the site would be gained from Mesne Lea Road. A
cycle storage area would also be provided within the site.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no comments received to date
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – comments received. The Architectural Liaison
Officer (ALO) has concerns relating to the security of the car park and the boundary treatment to Mesne Lea
Road.
Environment Agency – no comments received to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was posted on 3rd September 2004
A press notice was published on 16th September 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 7 (O), 2 – 6 Mesne Lea Road
294 – 304 (E), 322 – 328 (E), 177 – 239 (O) Walkden Road
Ashfield School, Silkhey Grove
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
101
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
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
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in the determination of the application to be: whether the principle of the use is
acceptable; whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents; whether the design of the proposed building is acceptable; whether the proposed level of car
parking is acceptable; whether the proposal would be satisfactorily secure; and whether the proposed
development accords with the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. I shall deal with each
in turn below.
Principle of the Proposal
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.
The application site is located in a predominantly residential area and I am therefore of the opinion that the
proposal would be compatible with surrounding land uses. The appeal scheme would also contribute to the
range of types of residential accommodation in the area, as the majority of properties are terraced or
semi-detached houses and this application proposes apartments. The application would also make efficient
use of a previously developed site within an urban area in close proximity to public transport links. I have
no objections to the principle of the proposal and consider that the application accords with policies H1 of
both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs in this regard.
Impact on Amenity
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 and the impact on neighbouring residents.
102
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
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 a minimum of 13.5m from the eastern boundary of the site and a minimum
of 18.4m from the western elevation of 1 Mesne Lea Road. Although there would be habitable room
windows in the eastern elevation of the proposed building, there are no main habitable room windows in the
western elevation of 1 Mesne Lea Road. The proposed building would be 15.8m from the northern
elevation of 322 Walkden Road, on the opposite side of Mesne Lea Road from the appeal site. There are
habitable room windows in the northern elevation of that property, but there are no main habitable room
windows in the southern elevation of the proposed building. The building would be 24m from the properties
on the opposite side of Walkden Road. I am satisfied that, in light of the above distances, there would be no
adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. I am of the opinion that the application accords
with Draft Policy DES7.
Design
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.
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.
The application has been amended from that originally submitted and now includes ‘mock’ doorways to the
Walkden Road frontage. I am satisfied that this has improved the appearance of the proposed building in
that it no longer appears to turn its back on the street. I have attached a condition requiring the submission of
samples of materials to be submitted and approved and I am satisfied that this will ensure that they will be
of a suitably high quality and in keeping with the surrounding area. Although the majority of the adjacent
buildings are two storeys in height, I have no objections to the height of the proposed building. A range of
building heights can add interest and variety to the street scene and I do not consider that a three storey
building in this location would appear either incongruous or out of character with its surroundings. On the
above basis, I am of the opinion that the application accords with Adopted Policy DEV2 and Draft Policy
DES1.
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 and that car parks are
designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements, surface materials, boundary
treatments and security measures.
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 ten car parking spaces, including two disabled spaces, would be provided within the site. In
addition, there would be a cycle storage area within the site. The application site is also well located in
103
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
terms of public transport. It is in close proximity to bus stops as well as Walkden train station. In light of the
above, I am satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable and accords with the Council’s
maximum car parking standards.
Crime
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.
Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
The ALO would prefer to see access for visitors from Walkden Road, rather than through the car park off
Mesne Lea Road. He also wishes to see the site surrounded by fencing. Any visitors to the property would
gain access through the pedestrian gate to Mesne Lea Road. Given that this application only proposes ten
apartments, I am of the opinion that the number of visitors would be minimal and would not pose a serious
threat to security. Notwithstanding this, the car parking area would be overlooked due to the number of
habitable room windows on the rear elevation of the proposed building which would improve natural
surveillance of that area. In terms of the second issue raised, the plans do indicate that 1.5m high railings
would be provided to the Walkden Road frontage and that 1.8m high railings and gates to the vehicular and
pedestrian entrances would be provided along Mesne Lea Road. I have attached a condition requiring the
submission of a landscaping scheme, which will include details of the boundary treatment. I am satisfied
that this will ensure that the height and design of the boundary treatment would be acceptable, both in terms
of its appearance and the security it would offer to the site.
VALUE ADDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT
As stated above, the application has been amended from that originally submitted as a result of my concerns
relating to its design and appearance in the street scene. It is now proposed to include mock doors to the
Walkden Road elevation which would improve the building’s appearance.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed use to be acceptable. The application would make
efficient use of land within an urban area and in close proximity to public transport links. I consider the
design of the proposed building to be acceptable and I am satisfied that the application would not result in
an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of overlooking or loss of
privacy. I am satisfied that the application accords with the provisions of the relevant adopted and draft
policies. I therefore recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following 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
104
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
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. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
4. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the means of vehicular access
from Mesne Lea Road has been constructed and laid out in accordance with the approved plans.
5. The car parking spaces shall be laid out in accordance with Drawing No. 2411:02 Rev A prior to first
occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved, and shall be made available at all times the
premises are in use
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the location and design
of cycle and bin stores and recycling facilities within the site shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services. The approved cycle and bin 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 R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
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 and 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 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:
105
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
7th October 2004
H1 - Meeting Housing Needs;
DEV1 - Development Criteria;
DEV2 - Good Design;
T13 - Car Parking
3. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the amended plans recieved on 16th September
2004 which show the revised location of the building
106
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
107
7th October 2004
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
108
7th October 2004
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
109
7th October 2004