PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
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
Further observations
I have received an additional letter of objection. The following concerns have been raised: the amended
plans still show a ‘single’ access and not the ‘double’ access which was a condition of the original approval;
profit for the builder and convenience for the Council is being put before the safety of residents including
children.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 7th October 2004 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Additional observations
Since writing my report I have received an additional 34 letters of objection raising concerns regarding the
sole use of Dean Road for access and that a loop road access using Magenta Avenue and Dean Road should
be provided.
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
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
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
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
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
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.
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
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
-
-
-
-
21st October 2004
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
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:
None.
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Other policies: H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing
Development
DES1 Respecting Context
DES11 Design and Crime
DES13 – Design Statements
DES9 Landscaping
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.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
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
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.
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
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
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
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
appropriateness of proposed materials. Replacement Plan policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the
Adopted UDP.
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
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Site Completion Report shall confirm that the agreed level of gas protection and cover systems have been
implemented during construction.
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:
i.
that the Director of Corporate Services be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the payment of a contribution to the
provision of open space and a commuted sum for, and implementation of, environmental
improvements in the local area to the value of £124, 090;
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
ii.
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject
to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
iii.
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject to the
conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal agreement,
iv.
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals do not support the aim and
objectives of policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Approve Subject to the following 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
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
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
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
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
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
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
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
APPLICATION No:
04/48691/FUL
APPLICANT:
Dappa Homes
LOCATION:
Former Salvation Meeting Hall Liverpool Road Cadishead
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 3 three-bedroomed
houses and 6 two-bedroomed apartments together with creation of new
vehicular access (Resubmission of previous application 04/47606/FUL)
WARD:
Cadishead
Additional observations
The applicant has submitted a sunlight/daylight study to demonstrate the affect of the proposed building on
light to the surrounding buildings. This study shows that the adjacent dwelling would not be adversely
affected by shadowing as a result of the siting of the proposed development.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 16th September 2004 consideration of this application was
DEFERRED FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY
PANEL.
Members will recall that this item was considered at the meeting of the Panel on 19 th August 2004. The
application was deferred to seek amended plans showing the correct north point (it currently points south
and not north) and to accurately plot the position and orientation of 1 Fir Street (the occupier disputed the
position shown on the plan).
Amended plans have now been received which correctly show the north point and accurately indicate the
position of the dwelling at 1 Fir Street. The proposed apartment building has been set back a further 1.4
metres from the boundary with the garden to 1 Fir Street – there would therefore be a distance of 5.2 metres
between the building and the garden fence (previously 3.8 metres). There would be a distance of 13.15
metres between the corner of the apartment building and the corner of the dwelling at 1 Fir Street.
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Concern has also been raised by the resident of 1 Fir Street that the description given to the existing building
in the planning appraisal part of this report as a ‘part single storey, part two-storey’ building is misleading.
For clarity, the front elevation (facing Liverpool Road) and the rear elevation are single storey and the main
body of the building is two storey (there are windows at ground floor and first floor level). The existing
building is, however, relatively squat, the ridge height being 5.7 metres. The eaves height of the proposed
apartment building is 5.7 metres and the ridge height is a maximum of 9.2 metres.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the site of the Salvation Army meeting hall on Liverpool Road. The proposal is to
demolish the existing hall and garage at the site and to erect three three-bedroom houses, fronting School
Lane and six two-bed apartments fronting Liverpool Road.
The dwellings would be 2.5 storey, with dormers at the rear and would be set back 9 metres from School
Lane, continuing the building line of the adjacent semi-detached dwellings. Three parking spaces would be
provided to the front which would be accessed directly from School Lane. Private gardens would be
provided to the rear.
The two-storey apartment building would be set back between 1 metre and 1.2 metres from Liverpool Road.
The footprint of the building would be a maximum of 15.2 metres in width by 18.6 metres. The rear element
of the building would be set in at each side and would be 9.6 metres in width. A car park comprising six
parking spaces would be provided to the rear, with vehicular access from School Lane. Private amenity
space and a bin store would be provided at the rear
The site is located within the Lower Cadishead key local centre. To the rear of the site, the surrounding area
is predominantly residential.
SITE HISTORY
04/47616/FUL – Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 3 three-bedroomed houses and 6
two-bedroomed apartments together with creation of new vehicular access. Application withdrawn.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objection in principle.
Director of Environmental Services – A search of contaminated land and landfill gas maps indicates that
there are no problems with the redevelopment of this site for housing and that no special measures are likely
to be required in the construction of the properties from a contamination or gas perspective. The only area
of concern is from noise from the adjacent A57 Liverpool Road. This road is considered to be very busy and
as such, high levels of noise from passing traffic are likely to occur. Whilst, the new Cadishead Way bypass
will reduce the level of noise significantly on this stretch of road, it is not yet completed so some form of
noise attenuation is likely to be required for the properties built at this location, a noise condition is
therefore recommended
PUBLICITY
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
A site notice was displayed on 6th July 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1, 5, 7, 9 Fir Street
10, 12 School Lane
176 – 180 (e), 182, 184, 169 – 179 (o), 179a Liverpool Road
1st Floor Flats 175, 177 and 179a Liverpool Road
Flats 1 – 4 184 Liverpool Road (& 16 Chapel Lane, Warrington)
29 – 33 Primary Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 7 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity. I
have also received an 18 name petition. The following issues have been raised:School Lane is a cul-de-sac, use of it as vehicular access would be detrimental to the residents living on
School Lane. The street is already at capacity for vehicles due to local businesses using the street for
parking. If each property were to have 2 cars, it would force another 9 cars to find parking on the street
due to there not being adequate parking within the new development, not taking into account visitors to
the proposed development.
Increased traffic and congestion would be detrimental to residents safety and result in increased noise
Apartments would not be in keeping with the other properties in the area
Loss of privacy for residents at 10 School Lane and 1 and 5 Fir Street
Loss of light to dwellings at 10 School Lane and 1 and 5 Fir Street and loss of sunlight to garden areas
The proposed apartments will be significantly higher than existing buildings and will lead to loss of
light and overbearing on residents of 1 and 5 Fir Street
Position of apartments is north and not south as stated on the plan – this will block out light to existing
buildings
There is currently a turning point at the front of 16 School Lane and there have been collisions with the
front fence due to the amount of traffic using the street
At peak times, cars double park on School Lane, causing residents problems accessing their driveways
Current parking problem makes emergency vehicular access impossible
Plans show obscure windows – what is to stop future residents changing these to clear?
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies:
Other policies:
None.
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
S3 – Key Local Centres
EN15 – Environmental Improvement Corridors
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
EN18 - Environmental Improvement Corridors
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
EHC2 – Reuse of Existing Health and Community Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the suitability of this site for residential
development and the loss of the community use; the siting and massing of the development and its impact
on neighbouring residents; the design of the development and its appearance in the streetscene; the level of
traffic generation and car parking provision and the level of amenity space provision within the proposed
development.
Principle of Residential Development
With regards to the principle of the proposed development, the site is located within a key local centre and
to the rear of the site is a residential area. With regards to the suitability of the site for housing I consider the
proposal satisfies adopted UDP policy H1 in providing brownfield land for housing use. In terms of
emerging policies of the revised deposit draft replacement plan ST11 and H1 seek housing development to
be located on previously developed land at an appropriate density for the site. I consider the density of
development proposed on this formerly developed site is appropriate. With reference to policy S3 of the
adopted UDP, I do not consider that the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes would have any
significant impact on the viability of the Lower Cadishead Key Local Centre, however, given that the
property is currently used as a community facility consideration must be given to Draft UDP policy EHC2.
To be in accordance with this policy the applicant must demonstrate that there is a lack of demand for the
existing use of the building or that alternative provision has been made. The applicant has submitted
supporting information in respect of this policy. This states that the facility was last used at the end of 2003
and that the Hall had to be closed due to the falling numbers of congregation.
Siting of Development and Impact on Neighbours
Policies DEV1, DES1 and DES7 require consideration to be given to
residential amenity and to provide well designed development that fits in
with the character of the area. I have received objections regarding loss
of privacy and loss of light to the dwellings at 1 and 5 Fir Street and
10 School Lane. For facing two-storey developments, the City Council
normally requires a minimum distance of 21 metres between habitable room
windows (i.e. lounge, bedroom, dining room etc) and at least 13 metres
between a habitable room and non-principle room window or gable. The closest
habitable room windows of the proposed dwellings would be situated 21.5
metres from 5 Fir Street, I do not therefore consider that there would be
any loss of privacy or light to this property. There would be a minimum
separation distance of 22.4 metres from the proposed dormer windows in the
rear roofspace.
With regards to the proposed apartments, the building would be sited closer
to Liverpool Road than the existing building. The existing building, which
is part single storey, part two-storey is located directly to the rear of
1 Fir Street. The windows that are proposed on the side elevation of the
apartments, facing the rear yard of 180 Liverpool Road and 1 Fir Street,
would be obscure glazed. I do not therefore consider that there would be
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
any loss of privacy. A condition is recommended to ensure that the obscure
glazing is maintained. With regards to light, whilst the proposed building
would be higher than the existing building and would be located 3.8 metres
from the side boundary, it would not be positioned directly to the rear
of the garden or dwelling at 1 Fir Street and as such, I do not consider
that there would be any loss of light. Furthermore, I consider that the
removal of the existing building which is positioned directly to the rear
of this dwelling and at closer proximity would allow an increased level
of light.
There would be a distance of 4.4 metres from the proposed houses and a window at the side of 10 School
Lane at ground floor, this is, however, a bathroom window and as such I consider this relationship to be
satisfactory. The proposed dwellings would face the side of 33 Primary Close, at a distance of 18 metres.
There is a window to the side of this dwelling, which appears to be a habitable room, but there is also a
window to this room at the front of the property. Furthermore, a 1.8m high timber fence is positioned on the
School Lane boundary which partially obscures this side window. I do not therefore consider that the siting
of the proposed dwellings would have any detrimental effect on the amenity of the residents of 33 Primary
Close.
The apartment building would be positioned 1 metre from the side of 184 Liverpool Road. There was
previously a habitable room window at first floor level in this side elevation, but this has recently been
bricked up following an agreement between the owners and the applicant. I am satisfied that there be no
detrimental impact on the amenity of any future residents of the flats at 184 Liverpool Road.
There would be a distance of approximately 15 metres between the habitable room windows to the
Liverpool Road elevation of the apartments and the properties on the opposite side of Liverpool Road. 173
Liverpool Road is a dwelling and 175, 177 and 179a Liverpool Road are A1 shops with vacant flats above.
This represents a significant shortfall in the 21 metre separation distance normally required by the City
Council between habitable room windows, however, consideration must be given to the existing building
line on Liverpool Road. The existing Hall has been set back from Liverpool Road and the design and siting
is poor and out of context with the character of the area. I consider that the benefits of the proposed
development, in this position, to the streetscene would allow for a relaxation of the normal distances.
Furthermore, the existing buildings on either side of the application site have a similar relationship to the
properties on the opposite side of Liverpool Road.
I do not consider that the proposed development would result in any loss of light or privacy to surrounding
residents.
Design and Appearance of the Proposed Development
Policies DEV1, DEV2 and DES1 seek to encourage the enhancement of the environment through good
design whilst policies EN15 and EN18 require the development to make a positive contribution to the
Environmental Improvement Corridor’s environment and appearance. The applicant has submitted a
streetscene plan to illustrate the context of the apartments in relation to the adjacent buildings. I consider
that the proposed design is of a high standard and reflects and complements the character of the surrounding
area. Whilst the apartment building would be approximately 0.5 metre higher than the adjacent buildings on
Liverpool Road, it would be set back approximately 1 metre and such would not appear out of context. I am
satisfied that the design and external appearance of the proposed houses is acceptable and would be in
keeping with the character of the area.
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Traffic Generation and Car Parking Provision
Policy T13 requires developments to have adequate and appropriate car parking and servicing and identifies
minimum parking standards. Within the revised deposit draft UDP there are no standards for car parking for
dwellings and the emphasis is on maximum parking standards, in line with national (PPG3 and PPG13) and
regional planning guidance (RPG13) and the desire to have less reliance on travel by private car. A number
of objections have been raised by residents in relation to the increased volume of traffic which would use
School Lane and the level of parking identified. With regards to car parking, 100% provision has been
identified for the development. Given that the proposed development is situated on Liverpool Road, a main
bus route and is within the key local centre and therefore close to local services, I consider that 100% car
parking is acceptable. With regards to concerns raised in relation to an increase in traffic, I do not consider
that an additional nine dwellings would result in any significant or unacceptable level of traffic generation,
in particular in consideration of the previous community use of the site and the level of traffic that would be
associated with such a use. With regards to concerns about double parking, the introduction of the three
private driveways and the formal vehicular access point to the apartments, will discourage on street parking
on this particular section of School Lane. I have no parking or highway objections to the proposals.
Level of Amenity Space
With regards to the provision of private amenity space, 130m2 of private amenity space has been identified
for the apartments, whilst the proposed houses would have private rear gardens of approximately 40m 2
each. I therefore consider that a satisfactory level of amenity space has been identified for the proposed
houses and apartments. Bin storage has been identified for the apartments, which would be located to the
rear of the building.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
A previous planning application for a similar development was withdrawn (04/47616/FUL) following
officer concerns. The value added to the development through pre-application discussions can be
summarised as:
Significant improvements in the design, external appearance and siting of the proposed apartments
Amendments to the internal layout and bricking up of the first floor side window to 184 Liverpool
Road, to ensure no loss of privacy or light to residents
Amended car park layout in line with required standards
CONCLUSION
I consider the site to be suitable for residential development and that the density and mass of development is
compatible to the size of the site and the street scene. I consider the buildings are well designed and will
contribute positively to the character of the area. The siting of the apartment building and houses allows for
an adequate level of amenity space to be provided. I do not consider that there would be any significant
increase in traffic generation and consider that an appropriate parking level of is proposed. I consider that
the scheme complies with policies of the adopted and emerging UDP and will make a positive contribution
to the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st 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 and roofs
of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
3. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Director of Development Services before development is started. Such scheme shall
include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment and
shall be carried out within 6 months of the commencement of development and thereafter shall be
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five
years of planting shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.
4. Prior to the first occupation of the apartments hereby approved the windows to the side elevations of the
building shall be obscure glazed and shall be maintained as such thereafter.
5. Before the first occupation of the apartment building hereby permitted is brought into use not less than
6 car parking spaces shall be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Director
of Development Services and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
6. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
7. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, the applicant shall submit for written
approval an assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. This assessment should follow
PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road network specifically
Liverpool Road, and but also any other noise sources which are deemed significant on the site. The
assessment shall identify any and all noise attenuation measures which may be determined appropriate
to achieve compliance with the requirements of PPG24 and BS8233:1999 and to reduce the impact of
noise on the residential properties on site. The assessment should also take account of the requirements
to provide summer cooling and rapid ventilation within the properties. It may be necessary to
incorporate acoustically shielded mechanical ventilation into the scheme to allow ventilation without
compromising the acoustic protection offered by the glazing. Once agreed, all identified noise control
measures shall be implemented and thereafter retained.
8. Before the first occupation of the three houses hereby permitted not less than 3 car parking spaces shall
be provided within the curtilage of the site to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
and such spaces shall be made available at all times the premises are in use.
9. Before the first occupation of the apartments and houses hereby permitted, the formation of the new
vehicular access to the development, as shown on the approved plans, shall be provided to the
satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and such spaces shall be made available at all
times the premises are in use.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
5. Standard Reason R011A Parking, turning etc within curtilage
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R011A Parking, turning etc within curtilage
9. Standard Reason R011A Parking, turning etc within curtilage
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Sewer connections will require approval - please contact United Utilities. Floor levels must be at the
same level of above adjacent properties.
2. The Environmental Services Directorate can be contacted on 0161 737 0551 for further discussions
concerning the assessment of noise and subsequent mitigation measures at this site.
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
DEV2 - Good Design
S3 - Key Local Centres
EN15 - Environmental Improvement Corridors
T13 - Car Parking
APPLICATION No:
04/48859/FUL
APPLICANT:
George Wimpey (Manchester) Ltd And Eccles Masonic Lodge
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
LOCATION:
Elm Bank Masonic Hall Half Edge Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing masonic hall and erection of a 4 storey building
comprising 56 apartments together with replacement masonic hall at
basement level with assoc. access and landscape works (re-sub. of
planning application 04/47538/FUL)
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the Masonic Lodge at Elm Bank on Half Edge Lane in Eccles. The existing
Masonic Lodge is a brick built three storey building with single and two storey extensions. The existing
building is used by the Lodge and is also used for private functions. The site is bounded by a number of
mature trees to all sides with some smaller trees within the site, the trees are protected by Tree Preservation
Order (TPO14). Car parking is situated between the lodge and Half Edge Lane and also the Lodge and 44
Half Edge Lane. Within the site there is also an existing bowling green between the Masonic Lodge and the
Ecclesholme nursing home to the south of the Masonic Lodge site.
Surrounding uses are residential. The aforementioned Ecclesholme nursing home is to the south of the site
and is three storeys and has windows of habitable rooms facing this site. Residential properties adjoining
the site are mainly two storeys high with one adjoining property on Half Edge Lane being single storey.
Across Half Edge Lane properties are a mixture of two, three and four storeys. One of the buildings
immediately opposite the Masonic Lodge is a four storey block of apartments that was approved by the
Panel in March 2001. Vehicular and pedestrian access is located onto Half Edge Lane adjacent to the
bungalow at 44 Half Edge Lane.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a four storey block of apartments containing 56 two bed
apartments. The block would have a flat roof and is proposed to be finished in brick from ground up to third
floor with metal panels at fourth floor level. The block, on plan view would be in a T-shape with the
principal elevation facing Half Edge Lane. The height to roof level is 11.8m and 12.5m to the recessed
lantern rooflight. Fronting Half Edge Lane the block is 36.4m wide and has 52 windows facing Half Edge
Lane.
Permission is also sought for the construction of a replacement Masonic Lodge underground within the site.
It would have a floor area of 27m by 30m and would be 4m deep below ground level. Access to the
subterranean replacement lodge would be from a single storey access structure with stairs and a lift, a
secondary lift is also proposed however details of this structure have not been submitted. A lantern light is
also proposed with a metal structure connecting the two. The proposed Lodge would have formal seating
for dining for 150 people with another 120 seats for lodge activities.
Car parking is proposed around the perimeter of the site and the existing pedestrian and vehicular access is
proposed to be utilised. The applicant has shown 56 car parking spaces, 17 motorcycle bays and bicycle
parking for the residential flats and 53 parking spaces for the Masonic Lodge. Landscaping and communal
amenity areas are shown around the residential block. The applicant has not proposed a replacement on site
for the bowling green which would be built upon by the flats, parking and the Masonic Lodge. The existing
Lodge building would be demolished as part of the proposal and a number of trees would be removed.
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
The applicant has submitted with his application a planning statement, design statement, tree report and
landscape statement. The planning statement identifies the reasons behind the application being that the
Eccles Masonic Lodge has structural defects which the Lodge can not afford to rectify and that this proposal
with 56 residential units is the minimum level of development required to enable a new purpose built
replacement lodge. The submitted reports seek to justify the proposal with regard to Salford City Council
UDP planning policies and national planning guidance.
SITE HISTORY
In March 2004, a planning application for the demolition of existing Masonic hall and erection of a
four and three storey building comprising of 66 apartments together with replacement Masonic hall
at basement level with associated access and landscape works was withdrawn by the applicant
following it being placed on the 1st April 04 Panel Agenda. The application was recommended for
refusal with six reasons. (04/48859/FUL).
In 2001, planning permission was granted for the erection of a brick entrance gateway to existing
access (01/42412/FUL).
In 2001, approval was given for the crown raising of various sycamore, lime and hawthorn (G1) to
5.2m over the highway (01/43158/TPO).
In 1999, an application was refused to fell three trees at Eccles Masonic Hall And 61 Preston
Avenue (99/37882/TPO).
In 1983, planning permission was granted for the erection of an entrance porch (E/15503).
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections. Suggest surface water drainage condition.
Director of Environmental Services – No comments received.
GM Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments received
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 11th August 2004
A press notice was published on 19th August 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
21, 21A, 23, 23A, 25, 29 – 53 odd, 38 – 44 even and 39A Half Edge Lane
39 – 61 odd Preston Avenue
1 – 17 Boothman Court
50 & 52, Ecclesholme, Bindloss Avenue
8 & 9 Crawley Avenue
2 – 5 Doughty Avenue
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received eight letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:-
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Proposals out of character with surrounding area
Loss of green space of the bowling green
Proposal is over development of the site
Proposed apartments are too high
Flat roof not aesthetically pleasing
Loss of light and privacy
Concern over increase in traffic in the area
Concern over TV reception
Concern over noise and traffic impact upon occupiers of surrounding residential properties
Siting of car and motorbike parking adjacent to residential properties
Not enough parking proposed for the intended development
Light pollution from cars using the site
Concern over drainage and construction of the underground Masonic Lodge
Proposed tree planting will affect drainage and be overbearing to neighbouring properties
Proposed works could undermine health of existing trees
Loss of existing trees would result in decreased privacy for neighbours
Questions whether the proposed apartments are affordable as suggested by the applicant and that if
the site is within Eccles there is already an over supply of affordable housing
Masonic Lodge should re-locate to Eccles town centre where public transport could be utilised to
access the site
Statement within the planning application statement that £100,000 is affordable is not accurate
Property would be devalued
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities,
H1 Housing Supply, EN20 Pollution Control,
DEV1 Development Criteria,
DEV2 Good Design,
DEV4 Design and Crime,
EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodland,
T10 Pedestrians,
T13 Car Parking,
DEV5 Equality of Access,
H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: R1 Protection of Recreation Land and Facilities,
H1 Housing Supply,
DES1 Respecting Context,
DES11Designand Crime,
EN10 Protected Trees,
A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled,
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle, and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments, DES2
Circulation and Movement,
H8 Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Development,
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
EN14 Pollution Control
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
No specific policies
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Both R1 policies require that formal and informal recreation land is protected unless the new
use/development is for recreation uses or replacement facilities are provided within the local area or that the
recreation facility is surplus to requirements. Objection has been raised, by local residents, to the loss of the
open feel that the bowling green provides. The applicant claims that the bowling green has not been used for
over a decade and does not provide any further supporting information but explains he considers there to be
no loss of a recreation facility and would not be willing to provide any replacement facilities. A Council
survey of recreation facilities was carried out in December 2001 and recorded the bowling green as being in
good quality and still in use. A 1997 aerial photo shows the bowling green. At present the bowling green
would be unplayable as a result of overgrown grass. Given the submitted information and Council records I
am of the opinion that the bowling green is protected by both of the R1 policies and also PPG17. Although
the bowling green forms green space it forms part of a larger brownfield site under Central Government
definitions and so if replacement facilities were provided the principle of residential development could be
appropriate. Given the level of bowling green provision in the area it is considered appropriate for a
contribution to alternative recreation facilities to be provided off site. As the applicant has stated he is
willing to enter into an agreement for such alternative facilities I consider the development is acceptable to
both R1 policies.
The general principle of housing could be acceptable under policy H1 given the brownfield nature of the
site however the densities proposed, impact upon neighbouring properties, design, layout and dual uses on
site need to be assessed carefully. The applicant proposes 56 two bed apartments within a residential area of
0.411 hectares which equates to 136 units per hectare over the residential area of the site. Policy H1 of the
Deposit Draft UDP requires a minimum of 30 units per hectare except for sites within town centres, mixed
use areas and at major transport nodes. I do not consider that this site falls within one of these accessible
locations and 136 units per hectare is very high especially when the scale, mass and impact of the apartment
block is considered. This situation is compounded further when the impact of the replacement Masonic
Lodge is considered alongside the apartments. There is little amenity space around the developments to
cater for the number of future residents and also the potential visitors to the Masonic Lodge. Policies H1,
DEV1, DES1 and DES7 require amenity space to be provided within new developments. I consider that the
amenity space proposed on site is insufficient for the 56 apartments and for the potential visitors to the
Lodge. If all other matters of the development were acceptable a S106 could be applied in line with the
Council’s SPG on provision of open space and recreation space within new residential developments,
however I consider that incidental amenity space is still insufficient.
Furthermore the applicant does not consider the proposal should be assessed against policies H6, H11, H8
or SPG7 (Supplementary Planning Guidance - Open Space associated with New Housing Developments) as
he believes the proposed development is not family accommodation. These policies require formal open
space and childrens play facilities to be provided on site or off site through a S106 obligation. Through the
formal consultation process for the adoption of SPG7, which explains this type of devlopment is considered
to be family accomoidation, George Wimpey Manchester Ltd were consulted and responded: “Having read
the copy of the SPG enclosed with your letter, we have no comments which we wish to make”. Childrens
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
play space and open space is a material planning considertaion and the lack of provision is contrary to
policies H6, H11, H8 and SPG7.
Objection has been raised to the height and scale of the development and impacts upon sunlight/daylight
and privacy. Although there are other four storey properties along Half Edge Lane such as those across the
road the character of these properties and the area is to have a vertical emphasis and pronounced gaps
between these buildings, which are generally pairs of semi-detached dwellings or replacement buildings of
similar proportions. These buildings would typically have four windows (including doors) across. This
proposed four storey building is some 36.4m wide and is 13 windows across. The building has a significant
horizontal emphasis and its scale and mass are out of keeping with the surrounding area. Adjacent
properties are a bungalow and two storey properties. The scale and mass of the proposal are considered to
be contrary to Policies DES1, DEV1 and DEV2. I consider the external appearance proposed to be out of
character with the street scene along half edge lane. The design and bulk of the building and the elevational
treatment proposed produces a utilitarian feel which again is at odds with the character of the area and is
again contrary to policies DES1, DEV1 and DEV2.
With regard to privacy and sunlight/daylight I consider that appropriate separation distances are maintained
with regard City Council standards. There are habitable room windows facing adjoining occupiers to the
east and west and to the north and south adequate separation distances are maintained in terms of City
Council standards. However future occupiers of the proposed ground floor apartments would have an
outlook over either parking spaces or a 1.5m high wall 2.2m away from the only windows. I consider the
proposed development does not provide a satisfactory outlook and amenity for the future occupiers and is
contrary to policies DEV1 and DES7.
Surrounding occupiers have objected to an increase in noise. The applicant has not submitted a noise survey
with this application. The previous application was submitted with a noise survey which considered the
dual use on site and impacts upon future occupiers and neighbours. The survey explained that the
development would result in noise levels slightly in excess of the World Health Organisation guidelines for
the adjacent Ecclesholme care home. On balance I considered a marginal exceedance not to be significantly
material in this instance to warrant refusal on this ground. However the applicant has not re-submitted this a
noise survey for this current application and therefore the impact of noise can not be fully assessed.
There is no obvious de-lineation between the two uses and anyone visiting either the flats or Masonic lodge
would be able to walk right around the whole development. This open plan development would not allow
for defined defensible space and flats 7, 8 and 9 at ground floor level would have unsatisfactory natural
surveillance given the 1.5m high wall just over 2m from their windows. The proposal is contrary to Policies
DEV4 and DES11.
Objection has been received to the lack of on site parking. I consider the amount of parking for the flats at
100% to be appropriate given maximum parking standards. However for the public areas of the Masonic
Lodge 60 spaces would be required. The applicant has indicated that he would provide 53 spaces. I consider
that 53 car parking spaces for the area of Masonic Hall proposed would not be sufficient and is contrary to
policies T13 and A10. Allocation for disabled parking, motorcycle parking and cycle parking has been
shown and the level of provision of this element of the proposal is in accordance with policies DEV1, A2
and A10 however the motorcycle parking could be sited further away from existing residential properties to
maximise existing levels of amenity. Although the existing vehicular access is to be utilised and the
boundary wall is proposed to be reduced to just over 1m in height the applicant has not adequately satisfied
me that the proposed level of development will provide a safe access.
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Objection has been received with regard to loss of trees. The siting of apartment block and Masonic lodge
and the layout of hardstanding and roadways produces development that comes nearer to the existing trees
right around the site. The tree report and survey submitted relate to the previous application explains that a
minimal amount of trees are to be removed for development. However a total of 25 trees are proposed to be
removed for construction and 17 trees are to be removed due to condition. Policies EN7 and EN10 and the
Councils SPG require the conservation of trees, especially protected trees. Some habitable windows would
be within 3.6m of the existing trees, this being contrary to the SPG on trees. Some trees shown as being
removed are identified as being of fair/good condition. The area of hardstanding moves toward the mature
tree belt facing Half Edge Lane. From the information previously received, I am not satisfied that the
scheme for the provision of root protection, can be implemented without the destruction of a large area of
the fibrous root tissue along with stabilising roots. This area is on a slope and this slope will need to be
levelled for the installation of the Geoweb and this is contrary to the way this material should be utilised for
the protection of roots. I consider that the proposal is contrary to policies EN7 and EN10.
Property value and the cost of the new dwellings cannot be taken into account
as a planning consideration. Issues of drainage and construction of the
underground lodge would be a matter to be resolved under the building
Regulations and with United Utilities.
CONCLUSION
Off site replacement recreation provision is proposed for the loss of the bowling green which I consider to
be acceptable. The scale and size of development proposed raises a number of amenity concerns regarding
future occupiers and loss of trees and of over development. The bulk and design of the apartments is out of
character with the surrounding area. Insufficient levels of parking are proposed. There are too many
apartments proposed and the density is too high and the proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of
trees. I consider that the proposal is contrary to a number of Unitary Development Plan Policies and
recommend refusal for the reasons set out below.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
(Reasons)
1. Satisfactory provision has not been made within the curtilage of the site or off site through a S106
obligation for formal open space and children's play space which would be detrimental to the amenity
of future residents contrary to H6, H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policy H8
of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003-2016 and SPG7.
2. The proposed development would by virtue of its design, large scale and mass, be seriously detrimental
to the visual amenity of the area and would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the
surrounding area contrary to policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the Adopted City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and Policy DES1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003-2016.
3. The layout of the site would not provide for an acceptable definition of defensible space and natural
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
surveillance for parking areas and apartments as a result would lead to conditions prejudicial to
designing out crime and the fear of crime contrary to policy DEV 4 of the Adopted City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan and DES11 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003-2016
4. The proposed level of parking on the site is insufficient and would likely result in on street parking in
the vicinity of the site detrimental to highway safety and residential amenity contrary to policies DEV1,
T13 of the Adopted UDP and policy DES2 and A10 of the Deposit Draft UDP.
5. The proposed development would be detrimental to the amenity of the area by affecting, to an
undesirable degree trees which are subject of a tree preservation order contrary to policy EN7 of the
adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and EN10 of the Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Plan 2003-2016
6. Satisfactory provision has not been made within the curtilage of the site for incidental open space
which would be detrimental to the living conditions of future residents contrary to policy DEV1 of the
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policies DES1, DES2 and H1 of the Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement Plan 2003-2016.
7. Satisfactory provision has not been made within the curtilage of the site for outlook from ground floor
flats which would be detrimental to the living conditions of future residents contrary to policy DEV1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policies DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement Plan 2003-2016.
8. Satisfactory information has not been submitted with the application to allow the impacts of noise to be
assessed for future occupiers of residents of the proposed development and residents of surrounding
dwellings contrary to policies DEV1, EN20 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and
policies DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003-2016.
9. Satisfactory information has not been submitted with the application to allow the impacts of highway
safety to be assessed along Half Edge Lane as a result of the proposed development contrary to policies
DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policies DES2 and A8 of the Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003-2016.
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
APPLICATION No:
04/48279/FUL
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
APPLICANT:
Chapel Invest Holdings Ltd
LOCATION:
Land Forming Rear Section Of Former Salford Royal Hospital Site,
And Land Bordering Wilton Place And Adelphi Street Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Erection of part three storey/part five storey building comprising 53
apartments with associated car parking and creation of a new vehicular
access (Resubmission of planning application 03/47026/FUL)
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Members will be aware that at the previous Panel meeting, additional information was requested regarding
the design and appearance of the building, particularly in relation to the Grade II* listed St Phillip’s Church.
Since the previous Panel meeting, the roof of the proposed building has been amended slightly in order to
reduce the amount of cladding used and to reduce its height. I am satisfied that this change has improved the
appearance of the building. The applicants have submitted additional coloured images of the proposed
building which reflect this change and show it in context. I am satisfied that the level of information now
submitted is sufficient in order to enable a full and proper assessment of the application to be made. I am of
the opinion that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the
adjacent listed buildings or the conservation area. My recommendation therefore remains one of approval.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site is currently used for car parking. It is bounded by Adelphi Street to the west, Wilton
Place to the east and the former Salford Royal Hospital, which has recently been converted to apartments, to
the south. Beyond the hospital is the Crescent. To the north of the site is an area of vacant land, which was
previously occupied by the former Cleminson Street Works and the Brewery Tavern. On the opposite side
of Wilton Place is St Philip’s Church, a Grade II* listed building. The Old Courthouse, a Grade II listed
building, which has also been converted to apartments, is to the north east of the application site. The site is
located within the Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area.
The proposed building would form an extension to the adjacent former Salford Royal Hospital. A total of 53
apartments would be accommodated within the proposed building. Car parking would be provided to the
north of the proposed building. Vehicular access into the site would be achieved from Wilton Place. The
ground floor of the proposed building would be constructed using natural stone, which would form a plinth
for the red brick stories above. Vehicular access to the car parking courtyard to the rear of the former
Salford Royal Hospital would be retained.
It is the applicant’s intention to redevelop the land to the north of this site, including the car parking area and
the site of the former Cleminson Street works and Brewery Tavern. The former road linking Adelphi Street
and Wilton Place (Adelphi Place) would be reinstated which would allow views of St Philip’s Church to be
gained from Adelphi Street. It is envisaged that Adelphi Place would be a pedestrian route linking the two
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
existing roads. The redevelopment of that site would incorporate sufficient car parking for the apartments
proposed by this application. The surface car parking area shown on the plans submitted with this
application would therefore only be temporary while the adjacent site is redeveloped.
SITE HISTORY
In October 2003, a planning application for the erection of a building comprising 53 apartments on land to
the rear of the former Salford Royal Hospital was submitted. The application was withdrawn later in
October 2003 (ref: 03/47026/FUL) due to my concerns relating to the design of the proposed building and
its relationship to the former Salford Royal Hospital.
In 1998, outline planning permission was granted for the erection of 98 dwellings with associated amenity
space and car parking (ref: 98/38334/OUT).
CONSULTATIONS
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – comments received. The ALO has concerns
relating to boundary treatment and unauthorised access.
Director of Environmental Services – no objections to the principle of the development, but recommends
conditions requiring the submission of a site investigation report and a noise assessment
Environment Agency – no objections
Greater Manchester Archaeology Unit – no objections
English Heritage – no objections
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 17th May 2004
A press notice was published on 20th May 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
3 – 35 (O), The Old Courthouse, 1 Encombe Place
Adelphi House, The Old Pint Pot Public House, Adelphi Street
St Philips Church, The Angel Health Centre, St Philips Place
Apartments 1 – 12, 14 – 73, 80, 99 – 114 The Royal, Crescent
105 Wilton Place
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of representation in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS1 – Trinity
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Other policies: EN11 – Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas
EN13 – Works to Listed Buildings Within Conservation Areas
H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
H6 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
H11 – Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/2 – Development in Mixed-Use Areas (Chapel Street West)
CH5/3 – Works within Conservation Areas (Adelphi and Bexley Square,
Blackfriars)
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
H8 – Open Space Provision Associated With New Housing Developments
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
DES13 – Design Statements
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of residential development
in this location is acceptable; whether the design reflects the proposed building’s location within a
conservation area and in close proximity to a number of listed buildings; whether adequate provision would
be made for open space; whether the proposed level of car parking is sufficient; whether the application
would make an appropriate contribution towards environmental improvements within the Chapel Street
Regeneration Strategy Area; and whether the proposal complies with the provisions of the relevant policies
of both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. These issues will be discussed in turn
below.
The Principle of Residential Development
Adopted Policy CS1 states that within the Trinity area, emphasis will be placed on providing enhanced
standards of residential accommodation and improving the local environment.
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 MX1/2 highlights Chapel Street West as an area to be developed for a mixture of uses.
Appropriate uses include housing, offices, tourism, leisure, retail and community facilities. In determining
the appropriate mix of uses on the site, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the positive
impact of the proposal on the regeneration of the wider area, the contribution the proposed development
would make towards securing activity in the area throughout the day and the prominence of the location.
Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a balanced mix
of dwellings within the local area.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
An application for residential development on this site was approved in 1998. There are also a number of
other residential properties in the vicinity, including The Royal and the Old Courthouse. Planning
permission has also recently been granted for the conversion of the Dock and Pulpit Public House on Bank
Place to two apartments. Although Draft Policy MX1 advocates a mixture of uses within the Chapel Street
West area, I do not consider it necessary to require the developer to provide a mix of uses as part of this
proposal. It would be possible for mixture of uses to be provided as part of the redevelopment of the site to
the north. Given the previous approval and in light of the number of other residential properties in the area,
I consider the principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential accommodation to be acceptable.
Design
Adopted Policy EN11 states that in considering planning applications for development in conservation
areas, the Council will consider the extent to which the proposal is consistent with the desirability of
preserving or enhancing the conservation area. The Council will encourage high standards of development
which are in keeping with the character of the area.
Adopted Policy EN13 states that in considering proposals to alter buildings within conservation areas, the
Council will have regard to a number of criteria, including the importance and condition of the building.
Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the Council is
satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.
Adopted Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and property
security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors including the
provision of security features.
Draft Policy CH5 states that development within conservation areas will only be permitted where it would
preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. Regard will be had to whether the proposal is of
a high standard of design and retains or improves features which contribute to the character or appearance
of the conservation area.
Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the character
of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this policy, regard will be
had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings and the quality and
appropriateness of proposed materials.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
Draft Policy DES13 requires applicants for major developments to demonstrate that the proposal takes
account of the need for good design. A written statement should be submitted which explains the design
concepts and how these are reflected in the development’s layout, scale and visual appearance, the
relationship to the site and its wider context and how the proposal meets the Council’s design objectives and
policies.
The design and scale of the proposed building have been amended in order to respect and reflect both the
character and appearance of the former Salford Royal Hospital and the Conservation Area. The proposed
building would not be over-dominant in this location and I consider its height to be appropriate. The
applicant has provided details of the proposed materials to be used (natural stone and brick). Whilst these
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
would be acceptable in principle, I have attached a condition requiring samples of all the materials to be
submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the development in order to ensure that they are of a
suitably high quality. The former Salford Royal Hospital is a highly decorated brick and stone building and
the facades of the proposed building would echo these materials.
The proposed building would simplify the ornate detailing of the former hospital. The recessed brick string
course at the upper levels of the proposed building would provide horizontal banding and the strong cornice
details would echo that of the existing building. Such references to the existing building would assist in
ensuring that the proposed building would be in keeping with its context. The central glazed windows to the
brick stair towers would provide a vertical contrast to the horizontal aspects of the facades. The height of
the stair towers would be kept as low as possible in order to ensure that the cornice line remains dominant.
Railings set within stone pillars would be provided to the ground floor. These would separate the public
realm from the private and would provide the future residents of the ground floor apartments with added
security. The details of the railings shown on the plans are indicative only and I have therefore attached a
condition requiring further details to be submitted and approved in order to ensure that they would be in
keeping with the Conservation Area and adjacent buildings. On the above basis, I am satisfied that the
design of the proposed building is acceptable. I am of the opinion that it would not detract from the
character or appearance of the Conservation Area within which it is situated, or have a detrimental impact
on the setting of the various listed buildings in the vicinity. I am therefore satisfied that the application
accords with the relevant provisions of Adopted policies EN11, EN13 and DEV2, and Draft policies CH5
and DES1.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) has commented on the application. He has a number of
concerns relating to the security of the proposed building, including the number of pedestrian entrances to
the building, the absence of defensible space and the reinstatement of Adelphi Place. I do not however
consider the above to be matters of concern in this instance. Pedestrian entrances to the building are
beneficial in order to encourage people to walk rather than use the car. Such entrances would also increase
pedestrian activity in the area and in turn would improve security. I am of the opinion that the proposed
development would encourage natural surveillance of communal areas, as well as the proposed temporary
surface car park through the location of habitable rooms overlooking such areas. I am of the opinion that the
reinstatement of Adelphi Place is crucial to the redevelopment of this area. I consider that the reinstatement
of this pedestrian link would have a positive impact on the area, would increase pedestrian activity and
would not have a detrimental impact on security and safety. I do not therefore have any objections to the
application in this regard. I have attached a condition requiring details of the boundary treatment to be
submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the development. This would ensure that the site
would be adequately secured in order to prevent unauthorised access, as well as ensuring that such
boundary treatment would enhance the character and appearance of the area. In addition, the railings in
front of the ground floor apartments would provide additional security to future residents. I am satisfied
that, subject to the condition relating to boundary treatment, the proposal would comply with the provisions
of Adopted Policy DEV4 and Draft Policy DES11.
In accordance with Draft Policy DES13, the applicants have submitted a brief design statement outlining
the design principles of the development and how the design respects and reflects both the character of the
former Salford Royal Hospital and the Conservation Area, as discussed above. I am satisfied that the
provisions of this policy have therefore been satisfied.
Open Space
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play within new
housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11 which sets out a sliding scale for such provision.
Draft Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal open space
within housing developments.
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant has agreed to make a contribution towards the
provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity. In accordance with the recently adopted
Supplementary Planning Guidance, the total contribution in this regard would be £54,813. I am satisfied
that the application therefore accords with Adopted policies H6 and H11 and Draft Policy H8.
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.
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.
The applicant has indicated that a total of 54 car parking spaces would be provided as part of this proposal,
to the north of the proposed building. The plans originally submitted have been amended to ensure that they
would not prejudice the reinstatement of Adelphi Place. Under normal circumstances, surface car parking
would not be considered appropriate in such locations. However, in light of the applicant’s intention to
redevelop that site and to incorporate car parking for the apartments proposed by this application within that
site, I consider it to be acceptable in this instance. In order to ensure that the car park would not become a
permanent feature in this location, I have attached a condition requiring the use of the site for car parking to
cease within two years from the date of this permission. This should allow sufficient time for a scheme for
the redevelopment of that site to be submitted and determined. Given that the site is currently used for car
parking and that this proposal would result in significant improvements to the area, I have no objections to
the application in this regard. Given the site’s location in close proximity to public transport links and to
Manchester City Centre and the services and facilities therein, I consider the level of car parking to be
appropriate and in accordance with the Council’s maximum car parking standards.
Environmental Improvements within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area
In accordance with the Council’s Development Control Policy Note in relation to developments within the
Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area, the applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution
towards environmental improvements within Chapel Street. A total of £53,000 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.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
This application is the result of a number of meetings with the applicant following the withdrawal of the
earlier scheme. A range of improvements to the design of the proposed building have been achieved,
including the use of natural rather than artificial stone, the inclusion of string courses, the size, shape and
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
positioning of windows, the materials for the staircase towers and the inclusion of railings to the ground
floor.
In addition, and in accordance with Development Control Policy Note on planning obligations within the
Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area and policies H6 and H11 of the Adopted UDP, the applicant is to
enter into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the payment of
a total of £107,813. This would contribute to environmental improvements and the provision of open space
in the vicinity.
The plans originally submitted have also been amended since the submission of the application to ensure
that the proposed temporary surface car parking area would not prejudice the reinstatement of Adelphi
Place.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential purpose is
acceptable and that the proposal would result in significant improvements to what is currently an
unattractive site and underused site. I am satisfied that the proposed design is acceptable given the site’s
location within a conservation area and in close proximity to a number of listed buildings. The financial
contribution would be in accordance with the Chapel Street development control policy note and Adopted
policies H6 and H11. I am of the opinion that the proposal complies with the relevant policies of both the
Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs and there are no material considerations which
outweigh this finding. I therefore make the following recommendation:
That Members are minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions below once the legal
agreement has been signed:
-
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 £54,813
and £53,000 respectively;
-
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 policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Adopted Unitary Development Plan or the
aim and objectives of the Chapel Street Regeneration Project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of external
surfaces of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services. This shall include the construction of a 1m by 1m structure using
samples of the brick and stone to be provided on site. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved samples.
3. The use of the surface car parking area to the north of the building hereby approved shall cease on or
before the expiration of two years from the date of this permission.
4. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site, the applicant shall submit for written
approval an assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. This assessment should follow
PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road network including the A6,
Adelphi Street, nearby railway lines, and any other noise sources which are deemed significant on the
site. The assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures which may be determined appropriate
to reduce the impact of noise on the residential properties on site. Once agreed, all identified noise
control measures shall be implemented and thereafter retained.
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 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 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.
6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the treatment to all the
boundaries of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development
Services. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation of any of the units
hereby approved
7. The car park hereby approved shall be laid out in accordance with the details shown on drawing no. 1a
and shall be available for use prior to first occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved
8. Prior to first occupation of any of the units hereby approved, the applicant shall make good the
redundant vehicular access points in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services prior to the commencement of the development
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
hereby approved.
9. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, a scheme showing the location, type, height
and colour treatment of a gate providing pedestrian access into the site from Adelphi Street and Wilton
Place shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The
approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any of the apartments hereby
approved.
10. 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.
11. 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 implements prior to first occupation of any of the
apartments hereby approved, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Director of Development
Services.
12. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of the surface treatment to
the proposed pedestrian route linking Adelphi Street and Wilton Place shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The pedestrian link shall be implemented
in accordance with the approved details either prior to first occupation of any of the apartments hereby
approved.
13. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the design, materials and colour treatment of the
proposed balustrades and railings to the north and east elevations of the building shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. Only the approved details shall be
implemented prior to occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Reason: In order to ensure that the future redevelopment of that site is not prejudiced
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
8. Standard Reason R015A Safety-users of highway
9. Reason: To enable pedestrians to access the site safely, in accordance with Policy DEV1 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
11. Reason: In order to encourage waste recycling, in accordance with Policy MW11 of the Adopted City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan
12. Reason: In order to provide a safe and convenient route for pedestrians, in accordance with Policy T10
of the Adopted CIty of Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy A2 of the Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement UDP
13. 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. 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:
CS1 - Trinity; EN11 - Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas; EN13 - Works to Listed
Buildings Within Conservation Areas; H1 - Meeting Housing Needs; H6 - Open Space Provision
within New Housing Developments; H11 - Open Space Provision within New Housing Developments;
DEV2 - Good Design; DEV4 - Design and Crime; T13 - Car Parking
2. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under Section 106
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning permission.
3. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the amended plan received on 11th June 2004
which shows the revised car parking layout and the amended plans received on 3rd August 2004 which
show the amendments to the elevations
4. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be satisfied prior to
the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions precedent renders all
development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be taken by the Council
5. The applicant is advised that drainage connections require approval from United Utilities
6. Pursuant to Condition 13, the details of the surfacing shall ensure that the existing cobbles beneath the
current surface material are either retained in situ or relaid as part of the surfacing scheme. It is the
Council's intention that the cobbles shall be reused to form the surface of the pedestrian route along the
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
line of the former Adelphi Place as part of further phases of development. The streets surrounding St
Phillips Church eg Wilton Place have been resurfaced using existing cobbles as part of a Heritage
Lottery scheme and it is the intention that a similar form of surfacing shall be created on the line of the
former Adelphi Place in the interesting of enhancing the character of the Conservation Area.
APPLICATION No:
04/48946/REM
APPLICANT:
University Of Salford
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Broad Street & Statham Street Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Details of landscaping scheme associated with new faculty building
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
To the east of the site is Salford Crescent Station and the associated railway line and to the west is the
remainder of the University of Salford Frederick Road campus, comprising a number of faculty buildings.
To the north is a nursery building and to the south is Broad Street.
Outline planning permission for the siting and means of access of the proposed health and social sciences
faculty building was granted in August 2003 and approval for the details of the design and external
appearance of the building was granted in November 2003. This is the final reserved matters application for
the proposed development.
2.1m high railings would be erected around the majority of the perimeter of the site, including along the
Broad Street frontage. The existing railings along part of the boundary with the railway and nursery
building would be retained. The landscaping scheme would involve the planting of a variety of trees within
the site. Hornbeams would be planted behind the new railings along the Broad Street and Statham Street
frontages. Maples would be planted along the boundary of the site with the railway, with hawthorns along
the boundary with the nursery. The areas between the trees and the car parking area would be grassed, with
shrubs planted along the boundaries of the car parking area. Paving would be provided around the new
building itself and at its entrance. The internal courtyard would include a grassed and paved area. Benches
and litterbins would be provided in front of the building’s main entrance.
SITE HISTORY
In August 2003, outline planning permission was granted for the siting of a health and social sciences
faculty building, including means of access (ref: 03/45920/OUT)
In November 2003, planning permission was granted for the details of the design and external appearance
in respect of the erection of a new health and social sciences faculty building (ref: 03/46833/REM)
CONSULTATIONS
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 3rd September 2004
A press notice was published on 9th September 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
29-33 Belvedere Road
1-32 Almond Close
Flats 1-2, 11-18, 21-28, 31-38, 41-48, 51-58, 61-68, 71-78, 81-88, 91-98, 101-108, 111-118,
121-128, 131-138, 141-148, 151-158, 161-168, 171-178, 181-188, 191-198, 201-208, 211-218,
221-228 Spruce Court and Thorn Court, Belvedere Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any letters of representation in response to the planning application publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: none
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DES9 - Landscaping
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the proposed landscaping scheme is
acceptable and whether the application accords with the relevant provisions of the Adopted and Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs.
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 landscaping provision.
Draft Policy DES9 requires developments to incorporate appropriate hard and soft landscaping provision.
The provision of such landscaping must be of a high quality, reflect and enhance the character of the area,
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
be sited and designed so as not to detract from the safety and security of pedestrians, complement the
development and be easily maintained.
A number of amendments to the proposed landscaping scheme have been made in response to my
comments on the scheme originally submitted. The trees along the boundary of the site with Broad Street
would be extra heavy standards in order to have more of an impact on the street scene. In accordance with
the Council’s environmental policy of not using peat, a peat substitute would be used within the site. The
proposed litterbins have been relocated closer to proposed benches at the entrance to the building. The
footpath link between the application site and the railway has been realigned in order to omit the sharp bend
which was originally proposed. I consider that this amendment would reduce the likelihood of people
hiding in area, which would not be a desirable situation. I consider that this amendment would improve
security and safety within the site and would encourage greater use of this footpath. I have also attached a
condition requiring the submission, approval and subsequent implementation of a lighting scheme within
the site. I am satisfied that this will improve security, particularly in relation to the footpath link to the
station. I consider that the height and type of railings around the perimeter of the site would be appropriate.
The applicant has confirmed that they would be painted green RAL6005, which I consider to be acceptable,
and I have attached a condition requiring them to be painted in this colour prior to their erection. I am
satisfied that the proposed landscaping would be of a suitably high quality and I have attached a condition
requiring the implementation of the landscaping scheme as shown on the revised drawings.
VALUE ADDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT
As discussed above, a number of changes have been made to the landscaping scheme originally submitted
as a result of my comments. These would contribute to improving the appearance of the landscaping
scheme and the security of the site as a whole.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied that the proposed landscaping scheme is acceptable. It accords with Policy
DEV1 of the Adopted UDP and Policy DES9 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP. I therefore
recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. 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.
2. The railings hereby approved shall be painted green RAL 6005 prior to their erection
3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a scheme for lighting within the site,
including the locations, heights, type and luminance levels of the lighting, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Director of Development Services. The approved scheme shall be
implemented prior to the building being brought into use.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations,
including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other material planning considerations that
outweigh this finding:
DEV1 - Development Criteria
2. The applicant is advised that this permission relates to the amended plan (027101-A0-1_008-D)
received on 22nd September 2004 which shows changes to the landscaping arrangements
APPLICATION No:
04/48294/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr And Mrs M Garson
LOCATION:
74 Singleton Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two storey side extension, including side and rear dormer
windows
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
The application relates to a two storey side extension, with a side and rear dormer window. It would provide
a garage on the ground floor, with a bedroom above and a gallery to the bedroom within the roof and
dormers. The scheme has been amended from originally submitted in order to remove a rear balcony at first
floor level.
The extension would be flush with the back main wall of the house, but it would be set back 1.3m from the
front main wall of the house. The side boundary to the property is angled so that the rear corner would be
0.15m in from the boundary but the front of the garage would be 2.3m in from the boundary.
SITE HISTORY
A previous application for this scheme was submitted in May 2003, but was withdrawn prior to
determination in order to better show the relationship to the adjoining house at 76.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
66 & 68 Upper Park Road
72, 76, 119 & 121 Singleton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have an objection on behalf of the neighbouring resident at 76. This on the grounds that it would be over
development of the site, particularly given the close proximity to the neighbour’s boundary. The inward
opening French windows at first floor would directly overlook the patio/pool area at no. 76 and screening
could not be achieved. The French windows would also be within 1m of a principal window in the
neighbour’s property which would be intrusive in the summer months. The objector offers some
suggestions to improve the scheme, including moving the extension forward, having fixed and obscured
glazing to rear first floor windows and moving the mezzanine in the roof space to be forward facing in order
to remove and rear overlooking.
I have also been contacted by the ward Councillor, who wishes to support the objection from no. 76.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of neighbours
DES8 – Alterations and extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Policy DEV8 states that the extension should not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking, overshadowing, dominance, loss of privacy or loss of
light. These issues are reiterated in Policy DES7 and DES8.
No 76 Singleton Road has a two storey extension built up to the boundary which lines up with the rear of the
original house at 76, and this has a rear facing bedroom close to the party boundary. This extension at 76 is
approximately half the length of the house. The ground floor comprises non-habitable rooms and a car port.
The proposed extension would not be forward of a point on a 45 degree line from the first floor window at
the extension. Therefore I do not consider that it would have an adverse effect on the adjoining neighbour’s
extension in terms of loss of light or overshadowing and that it would comply with the SPG.
There would be a new rear facing bedroom, with full height patio style doors, and a rear dormer window in
the roof. The application property is slightly angled towards the neighbour’s house and therefore I have
considered the possibility of overlooking and loss of privacy to the neighbouring garden, particularly given
that the bedroom would have full height windows. The applicants have an existing detached garage with
play room above which is to the rear of the proposed extension, and there are considerable shrubs and trees
along the boundary which would both provide a degree of screening to no. 76’s garden. As the proposed
window would only be slightly angled towards no. 76 and there would now be no balcony, I do not consider
that this would result in any undue problem of overlooking or loss of privacy to the neighbouring property.
The application relates to a large house within a large curtilage and the extension would only occupy a small
part of the site. Therefore I do not consider that this would result in an over development of the property.
The side facing dormer would face towards the neighbour’s hipped roof so I do not consider that this would
result a loss of privacy or overlooking to this neighbouring property. The extension would be set back 1.3m
from the front main wall of the house but the extension would be set on an angle to the boundary so that the
point at which the extension would be within 1m would be set back over 4m from the front of the house.
Therefore, I do not consider that this would result in a terracing effect.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
An amended plan has been submitted to remove a rear balcony at first floor level
CONCLUSION
I consider the proposed extension would not be contrary to policy DEV8 of
the adopted Unitary Development Plan, policy DES8 of the Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance
on House Extensions and not have a detrimental impact on the street scene
or neighbouring residents. I therefore recommend that the application be
approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
2. The facing materials to be used for the walls and roof of the development shall be the same type, colour
and texture as those of the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of
Development Services.
3. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 27 September 2004 which shows revised
rear window design to the bedroom.
4. The side facing low level escape window shall be fitted with obscure glazing prior to the occupation of
the extension hereby approved and shall be retained as such thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
3. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
4. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Reason for Granting Planning Permission
This application was determined having regard to Policy DEV8 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan and the City Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions and
planning permission has been granted because the proposals accord with that Policy in that they respect
or contribute to the character and amenity of the area and are of a satisfactory quality of design. There
are no other material planning considerations that outweigh this finding.
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
At the meeting of the Panel held on the 7th October 2004 consideration of this application was DEFERRED
FOR AN INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
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
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
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
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.
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
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
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.
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
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
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:
04/48892/HH
APPLICANT:
Mr Begal
LOCATION:
12 Stanley Road Salford 7
PROPOSAL:
Construction of dormer extensions to roofspace at side and rear of
property
WARD:
Kersal
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to an end semi-detached property. The front of the property faces Stanley Road with
the side of the property facing Marston Road, which is an adopted highway.
The proposal is to build up the roof from a hipped roof to a gable roof and construct a new dormer at the
rear. The dormer window would be set up 1m from the eaves and 0.3m below the ridge it would be almost
the full width of the property with a flat roof and a height of 2.3m.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
10, 14 and 17 Stanley Road
6 Martston Road
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection or representation. Councillor Connor has requested that the
application be dealt with by the Planning and Transport Regulatory Panel as there have been other dormer
extensions approved in the wider vicinity that can been seen from the highway.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV8 – House Extensions
Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES7 – Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES8 Alterations and Extensions
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV8 states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the character and
appearance of the street scene. These issues are reiterated in policies DES7 and DES8. With regards to the
building up of the roof to create a gable end, the adjoining semi has a gable end therefore this aspect would
be in keeping with the character of the pair of semi.
HH15 of the House Extension Supplementary Planning Guidance states that planning permission for
dormer windows facing highways will not be acceptable unless their impact can be significantly reduced on
the street scene by having pitched or hipped roofs, set well below the ridge and well up from the eaves and
splitting them into two parts can significantly reduce the impact of larger dormer extensions. The proposed
dormer would be one large box dormer with a flat roof. The whole proposed dormer extension would be
clearly seen from Marston Road. No 10 and No.8 Stanley Road have similar slightly smaller dormer
extensions that either did not require planning permission due to their size or have been there for at least ten
years, prior to the introduction of Supplementary Planning Guidance. Each planning application is
considered on its own merits and although there have been other dormer extensions approved in the vicinity
I would not consider them to be identical to this application and would consider this application to be more
prominent.
CONCLUSION
I would consider the changes to the roof to be acceptable and not have a
detrimental impact on the street scene or neighbouring residents. I would
consider the proposed dormer extension to be in a prominent location close
to an adopted highway and would consider the proposal to have an
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
unacceptable detrimental impact on the street scene contrary to policy DEV8
of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, policy DES8 of the Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement Plan and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance
on House Extensions. I therefore recommend that the application be refused.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse For the following Reasons:
(Reasons)
1. The proposed dormer extension would, by reason of its size and design, be an incongruous addition to
the roofscape and have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area contrary to Policy HH15
of the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance for house extensions and policy DEV8 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan and Policy DES8 of the Revised First Deposit Draft Replacement
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
APPLICATION No:
04/48661/FUL
APPLICANT:
Salford City Council - Housing Market Renewal Team
LOCATION:
Alleyways To Rear Of 1 - 19 And 12 - 16 Buckingham Avenue, 2 - 20
And 1 - 19 Church Avenue And 2 - 20 Derby Avenue Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of alleygates and fencing to create secure alleyways including
change of use of land to communal area
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application is for the erection of 2.4m high railings and lockable alley gates which measure 2.65m at
the crest of the curve to provide residents only access and improved security. The gates would be located at
the entrances of the alleyways to the rear of 12 to 16 Buckingham Avenue (Alley X), 1 to 19 Buckingham
Avenue and 2 to 20 Church Avenue (Alley Y) and 1 to 19 Church Avenue and 2 to 20 Derby Avenue (Alley
Z). Two areas of open land, F1 and F2, to the southern most ends of alleyways Y and Z respectively would
be enclosed with 2.4m high fencing to provide communal outside areas. Lockable gates would be included
to provide residents only access to these areas.
CONSULTATIONS
The following have been notified:
Peak and Northern Footpath Society.
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
-
21st October 2004
Ramblers Association.
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association.
Open Space Society.
The Manchester and High Peak Area branch of the Ramblers Association are objecting to the enclosure of
areas F1 and F2 as it would result in the removal of common land from public use.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published in the Salford Advertiser on the 16th of September 2004.
A site notice was displayed on the 16th of September 2004.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 19 (Odds) Buckingham Avenue
12 to 16 (Evens) Buckingham Avenue
1 to 19 (Odds) Church Avenue
2 to 20 (Evens) Church Avenue
2 to 20 (Evens) Derby Avenue
St Luke’s Church, St Luke’s Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: H7 – Housing Area Improvement and Renewal – Private Sector
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV4 – Design and Crime
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES 11 – Design and Crime
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact the proposed railings and gates would
have on the street scene and the residential amenity of neighbouring residents and the impact the proposed
closures would have upon crime and the fear of crime. The loss of existing public rights of way also needs
to be considered.
Policies DEV1 and DES1 identify a number of issues that should be taken into account when determining
planning applications, these include the visual appearance of the development and its relationship to its
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
surroundings. I am of the opinion that the that the design, siting and height of the proposed gates and
railings would be in keeping with the character, scale and height of the terraced two storey residential
properties in the area. Consequently the gates and railings would not form visually obtrusive features and
therefore their introduction would not therefore have an adverse impact upon the street scene or the
residential amenity that can reasonably expect to be enjoyed by the neighbouring residents. The proposed
development would in fact improve the environmental quality of the area by contributing towards its
regeneration.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 outline how the City Council will encourage crime
prevention in order to promote personal and property security. The gating
of the alleyways and the enclosure of the two sections of open land at the
southern most end of alleyways Y and Z would help to deter crime by only
allowing access to the residents of the properties behind which the
alleyways lie. This restricted access would assist crime prevention by
deterring vandalism, theft and other criminal activity, thereby helping
to reduce the resident’s fear of crime.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the street scene or the
residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring residents. In fact the proposed development would
improve the quality of life currently enjoyed by residents in the surrounding area, as it would contribute to
the regeneration of the area by improving the environment and eliminating vandalism, theft and other
criminal activity. The proposal is therefore in accordance with policies DEV1 and DEV4 the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan and policies DES1 and DES11 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan.
I therefore recommend the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The railings and gates hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing prior
to the commencement of development by the Director of Development Services.
3. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the appropriate order for the closure
or diversion of the public rights of way affected by the development has been made.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. Reasons for Granting Planning Permission The decision to grant 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, and the particular circumstances summarised below
City of Salford Unitary Development Plan - DEV1 - Development Criteria, DEV 4 - Design and
Crime, H7 - Housing Area Improvement and Renewal: Private Sector
Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan - DES1 - Respecting Context, DES11 - Design and Crime
APPLICATION No:
04/47562/OUT
APPLICANT:
Martin Moylan
LOCATION:
Land On Fereday Street Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Outline planning application for the erection of two three storey
buildings comprising 30 apartments with associated car parking and
construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Walkden North
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Following Members’ site inspection, this application was reported to Panel on 15 th April 2004. Members
decided to defer the application and requested that additional information be submitted to demonstrate how
34 apartments could be accommodated within the site whilst complying with the Council’s planning
policies.
As a result of Members’ concerns regarding this proposal, the applicant has made a number of amendments
to address their concerns. The number of apartments has been reduced from 34 to 30. This comprises 26 two
bedroomed apartments and four one bedroomed apartments. The block at the southern end of the site has
been reduced in height from four storeys to three storeys. The northern block remains at three storeys. A
total of 30 car parking spaces would be provided within the site.
Although the application remains in outline, approval is now sought for siting, design, external appearance
and means of access. Approval for landscaping is reserved for determination at a later date.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Local residents and Members had concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the amenity of existing
residents. There would be a minimum of 24m between the eastern elevation of the northern block and the
rears of the properties on Bolton Road and there would be a minimum of 16m between the western
elevation of the southern block and the front of the properties on Dagmar Street. I am satisfied that these
distances would ensure that there would be no adverse impact on the amenity of existing or future residents
due to overlooking or loss of privacy. The distances between the two proposed blocks would also be
sufficient to ensure that future residents would not be similarly detrimentally affected.
I am of the opinion that the amendments outlined above have improved the scheme and am satisfied that the
revised proposal complies with the provisions of the policies outlined in my original report. I therefore
recommend approval.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At a meeting of the Panel held on 1st April 2004 consideration of this application was DEFERRED FOR AN
INSPECTION BY THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL.
My previous observations are set out below:
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application site comprises two vacant, grassed pieces of land at the end of Fereday Street. To the north
of the site is another area of vacant land. Outline planning permission was granted in April 2003 for the
erection of a building comprising eleven flats together with associated car parking on that site. To the east
and west of the application site are the rears of residential properties. To the south is the car park for part of
the Ellesmere Shopping Centre.
The application has been amended from that originally submitted and approval is now sought only for the
principle of the redevelopment of the site for thirty four apartments and associated car parking and the
means of access. All other matters have been reserved for determination at a later date and the plans
submitted with the application showing siting, design and external appearance are now for illustrative
purposes only.
SITE HISTORY
In April 2003, outline planning permission was granted for the erection of one part three/part four storey
building comprising eleven flats, together with associated car parking and the construction of a new
vehicular access (ref: 03/45706/OUT)
In October 2002, and outline application for the erection of two buildings comprising twenty four flats,
together with associated car parking and the construction of a new vehicular access was refused (ref:
02/44545/OUT)
In June 2002, an outline application for two blocks of three storey flats comprising a total of twenty eight
flats was submitted and subsequently withdrawn in July 2002 (ref:02/43905/OUT)
In April 2001, an outline application for nine dwellings including 3 three storey properties fronting
Brackley Street, together with associated car parking and access was approved (ref: 01/41728/OUT)
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
In November 1999, an outline application for eleven dwellings, associated car parking and alterations to the
existing access was submitted and subsequently withdrawn in December 1999
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections to the principle of the development but recommends
conditions requiring site investigations and a noise assessment
British Coal – no response received to date
Ramblers’ Association – no objections
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no response received to date
Open Spaces Society – no response received to date
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – no response received to date
United Utilities – no objections to the principle of the proposed development but objects to the application
as originally submitted due to the siting of the proposed buildings, as several public sewers cross the
application site and building over them would not be permitted
Environment Agency – no objections to the principle of the proposed development but recommends a
condition requiring site investigations
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – no comments received to date
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 19th January 2004
A press notice was published on 29th January 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
173 – 213 (O) Bolton Road
1 – 14 Wesley Court, Brackley Street
31-41 (O) Brackley Street
2 – 30 (E) Dagmar Street
25 – 31 (O) Fereday Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection and petition signed by twenty one local residents in response to the
planning application publicity. The following issues have been raised:A building of three or four storeys would be too high
The proposed building would result in a loss of privacy
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
There would be insufficient amenity space within the site
The proposed buildings would be detrimental to the character of the area
There would be an increase in traffic in the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV1 – Development Criteria
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
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 through a number of measures, including releasing land
to accommodate new house-building.
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria against which applications are assessed. Of most relevance to
this proposal are the location and nature of the proposed development, including its relationship to existing
and proposed land uses and the likely scale and type of traffic generation
Policy H1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP states that all new housing development is
required to fulfil a number of criteria, including, inter alia, contribute to the provision of a balanced mix of
dwellings within the local area, not lead to an oversupply of any particular type of residential
accommodation or otherwise result in an unacceptable impact on the housing market, provide
accommodation at an appropriate density for the site and provide a high quality residential environment and
adequate level of amenity.
In light of the amendments made to the application and given that approval is now sought only for the
principle of the redevelopment of the site for thirty four apartments and means of access, the majority of the
concerns raised by the objectors relate to matters which are now reserved for determination at a later date
and are not therefore issues relevant to the determination of this application. I am satisfied that it would be
possible to accommodate thirty four apartments and associated car parking within the application site
without there being an unacceptable detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue
of overlooking or loss of privacy. I also consider that the site could be redeveloped without detriment to the
amenity of the area. I am satisfied that the concerns raised by United Utilities in relation to the existing
sewers crossing the site could be addressed by appropriate siting.
In terms of the last objection, I acknowledge that a development comprising thirty four apartments would
inevitably result in an increase in traffic in the area. I do not however consider that such an increase would
have an unacceptable detrimental impact on highway safety. I am of the opinion that such concerns do not
warrant refusal of the application and I can confirm that I have no objections to the application in this
regard.
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Given that planning permission was granted last year for the construction of a building comprising eleven
apartments on part of the application site, I consider that the principle of residential development in this
location is acceptable. This proposal would result in the re-use of what is currently a vacant and unattractive
site and would present an opportunity to improve the site and the surrounding area.
The proposal would necessitate the closure of part of Fereday Street. The necessary consultations have been
undertaken and I have not received any objections to the application in this regard. I have attached a
condition requiring the relevant closure order to be obtained prior to the commencement of the
development.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the proposal would make efficient use of a previously developed site
within an urban area in close proximity to Walkden town centre. I am satisfied that the site could be
redeveloped without the amenity of neighbouring residents or the surrounding area being unacceptably
detrimentally affected. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been submitted
to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- 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. 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 the 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 contamination 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 the 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.
4. Prior to the commencement of any of the building works on site, the applicant shall submit for written
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
approval of the Director of Development Services an assessment of noise likely to affect the application
site. This assessment should be geared towards assessing the noise from the road network and
associated feeder roads including Bolton Road and any other sources which are deemed significant on
the site, such as the Ellesmere Shopping Centre. The assessment shall identify any noise attenuation
measures which may be determined appropriate to reduce the impact of noise on the residential
properties on site. Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be implemented and
thereafter retained.
5. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until the appropriate order for the closure
or diversion of the public right of way affected by the development has been made.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
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:
H1 - Meeting Housing Needs; DEV1 - Development Criteria
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 applicant is advised that this permission relates to the amended plans received on 20th August 2004
and 15th September 2004 which show the alterations to the height and elevations of the buildings
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
APPLICATION No:
04/48359/FUL
APPLICANT:
George Wimpey (Manchester) Limited
LOCATION:
Former 'Restawhile Beds' Factory Worsley Road North/ Devonshire
Road Walkden Worsley
PROPOSAL:
Proposed development of 127 (two additional plots) two, three and four
bedroomed apartments, mews and detached houses.
WARD:
Walkden North
BACKGROUND
This application relates to the erection of 127 dwellings on the site of the former Restawhile Beds factory
located at the junction of Worsley Road North and Devonshire Road in Walkden.
Members will be aware that the Panel considered a similar application for 125 dwellings on a slightly
smaller site area in June 2003 (03/45684/FUL). The application was recommended for refusal but members
considered the application a special case and were minded to approve the application subject to adequate
conditions, the signing of a Section 106 legal agreement and delegated the decision to the Chairman of the
Panel.
In February 2004 the owners of the adjoining industrial estate applied for judicial review of the planning
permission on five grounds, namely that the Council:acted in breach of the Town and Country (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999;
acted in breach of a legitimate expectation that the owners of the adjoining industrial estate would
be notified of the application;
erred in failing to take account of loss of the land as an employment site;
acted irrationally;
erred in failing to give reasons for its decision.
Although a previous application (02/44736/FUL) had been screened in accordance with the EIA
Regulations a formal screening opinion of this application was not made. Therefore, in February 2004 a
letter was sent to the Royal Courts of Justice saying that the Council would not be contesting the application
for judicial review on the grounds that the consideration of the application did not strictly meet the
requirements of the Regulations. Therefore, although the Council contested the other four grounds for
judicial review, conceding one meant that Salford would not be contesting the application for judicial
review as a whole. It was also pointed out to the Court that the decision notice had been issued without the
final approval of the Chairman of the Panel. Advice from Counsel taken at the time stated that Wimpey
were entitled to view the decision notice as a valid one.
However, in March 2004 the Council was made aware that Wimpey had commenced development of the
125 houses and in April 2004 the City Council wrote to Wimpey’s solicitors stating that the development
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
that had taken place on the site was not in accordance with the planning consent as Wimpey had failed to
comply with conditions precedent imposed by the Council. It was suggested that in order to avoid the risk
of enforcement action Wimpey should submit a fresh application to the Council. Development of the site is
well under way and a number of dwellings are nearing completion.
The current position with regard to the application for judicial review is that the application for permission
to appeal against the original decision to grant planning consent has been allowed, but that the case has been
adjourned pending the determination of this new application for planning permission.
Members are therefore required to consider this new application, which includes an additional 6m strip of
land that accommodates the line of the footpath, anew.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The Restawhile Beds factory ceased manufacturing in November 2000. The building was single storey
with two storey offices to the front of the site. The site covers an area of 3.2 hectares and is adjacent to the
Oakhill Trading Estate that lies to the north and west of the site. There are industrial premises opposite on
Worsley Road North with residential properties to the south beyond Hirst Avenue. To the rear of the site
there are industrial premises and the former Ashton Fields Colliery site that is a site of proposed open space
and industrial development.
It is proposed to erect a total of 127 residential units on the site. The proposal comprises a broad mix of
house types including two-bedroomed apartments, two and three-bedroomed terraced houses,
three-bedroomed semi-detached houses and four-bedroomed detached houses. All properties would be
two-storey with the exception of twelve three-storey townhouses and two blocks of four-storey apartments
on the Worsley Road North frontage. The main access to the site would be from Hirst Avenue and the
application proposes the widening of the kerb radii at the junction of Hirst Avenue and Worsley Road
North. In addition three units would be accessed from Hirst Avenue itself along with access to the garages
for twelve other houses. Emergency access is provided from Devonshire Road. A total of 164 parking
spaces are provided, less than 1.3 per dwelling.
Three areas of open space are proposed within the development, one semi-private area at the junction of
Hirst Avenue and Worsley Road North adjacent to the apartment blocks, another semi-private square to the
rear of the site that would provide an enclosed public seating area to those properties on the square and a
third area of public open space measuring 0.17 hectare in compliance with requirements on public open
space within housing developments. The total open space provision within the site amounts to just over 0.3
hectares. The applicant has agreed to fund children’s equipped open space within the local area.
The layout is imaginative. As stated above a traditional square is created to the rear of the site with its own
public garden in the centre. Cars are separated from curtilages and garages are located to the rear of squares
of houses thereby enhancing the pedestrian friendly nature of the development and reducing the overall
parking provision by removing driveways to the front of garages. This emphasis on pedestrian access to
dwellings has also resulted in a reduction in some of the traditional interface distances between units.
The application provides for the reinstatement of a public footpath that linked Hirst Avenue and Worsley
Road North with the former colliery site to the west that is now proposed public open space.
The application has been screened in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations
1999 and although it is schedule 2 development, it is not of more than local importance, is not in a
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
‘sensitive’ area and is unlikely to have significant effects on the environment. An Environmental Statement
is not therefore required.
SITE HISTORY
Members will recall that planning permission was first refused for a similar scheme on land that makes up
the majority of this site in November 2002 (02/44736/FUL). The application was refused on the following
grounds:1.
The proposed equipped children’s play area would seriously injure the amenity of future occupiers
and neighbouring residents by reason of its layout and siting. As such it would be contrary to both policies
DEV1, H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
2.
The layout of the proposed development does not adequately address crime prevention and as such
is contrary to policy DEV4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
3.
The proposed development would result in the loss of an employment site leading to a material
shortfall in the range of sites available for economic development. As such the proposal would be contrary
to Policy EC3 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4.
The proposal would result in the loss of a mature tree protected by City of Salford Tree
Preservation Order 266 that would have a significant detrimental effect on the amenity of the area. As such
the development would be contrary to both policies DEV1 and EN7 of the City of Salford Unitary
Development Plan.
5.
The proposed development would be detrimental to highway safety and the free flow of traffic on
Devonshire Road as a result of cars backing out of car parking spaces accessed of that road. As such the
development would be contrary to policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
The details of the last application (03/45684/FUL) are dealt with in the opening ‘Background’ section.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – Has been closely involved with both the applicant and the principle
objectors in reaching agreement on a range of mitigation measures that will ensure as far as is practically
possible that residents of the development will not be affected by noise from the neighbouring industrial
estate.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No comments received to date on the current
application. Previously the comments were as follows:- has a number of concerns with regard to security
issues including the garage courts, recessed doors on one of the house types and the underpass on another
house type.
Greater Manchester Fire Service – No objections.
The Environment Agency – No objections in principle subject to a condition regarding culverting and
ecological mitigation measures.
Coal Authority – No comments to date on the current application but previously had no objections.
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Ramblers Association – Wish to maintain their objection to the development.
Open Spaces Society – No reply
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – No reply
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association -
No reply
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 39 Hirst Avenue
1 to 16 (incl.) Gorton Grove
Units 15B, 23, 19, 16, 20 and 30 Oakhill Trading Estate Devonshire Road
1 to 27 and 2 to 16 Arthur Avenue
1 to 15 and 2 to 12 Albert Avenue
115 to 125 Worsley Road North
I have also specifically notified both the owners of the adjoining industrial estate and their agents.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received two letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity. The following
issues have been raised:The development will result in the loss of an important employment site
The development will have serious implications for the Oakhill Industrial Estate and the amenity of
future residents
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: UR4 – Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, H1
Meeting Housing Needs, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, DEV1
Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, EN10 Landscape, EN15
Environmental Improvement Corridors, EN20 Pollution Control, T10 Pedestrians, T12 Public Rights of
Way
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: EN14 Air Pollution, Noise, Odour and Vibration, E5 Development Within Established
Employment Areas, DES1 Respecting Context, DES11 Design and Crime, H8 Open Space Provision
Associated With New Housing Development, H1 Provision of New Housing Development, DES7 Amenity
of Users and Neighbours, A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the development will result in the loss of
an important employment site and whether the development would have serious implications for the
Oakhill Industrial Estate and the amenity of future residential occupiers.
Loss of an important employment site.
Policy UR4 of the RSS states that the redevelopment of vacant sites and buildings within urban areas should
be a priority. Policy EC3 of the adopted UDP states that where existing industrial premises become vacant,
the City Council will seek to re-use or redevelop them for similar uses, except where one or more of three
criteria apply. These criteria include that the site could be used for other purposes without a resulting
material or unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites and/or premises available for economic development.
Policy E5 of the revised deposit draft replacement UDP states that planning permission will only be granted
for the re-use or redevelopment of sites or buildings within an established employment area for
non-employment uses where the development would not compromise the operating conditions of other
remaining employment uses and where one or more of a number of criteria apply. These criteria include
that the developer can clearly demonstrate that there is no current or likely future demand for the site or
building for employment purposes.
Previously the applicant had submitted a report that pointed out that the site had been marketed for a period
of 18 months when the main use ceased in 2000. During that time there were just two viewings with no
viable offers being made. The report went on to argue that there was no shortage of industrial land available
within the City. With regard to the issue of the particular size of the site the report argued that it had no
advantages over others in the City. The report pointed out that the site did not form part of the adjoining
industrial estate that is characterised by relatively small units.
The objector argues that unemployment is high in the local area and that the site is in a good location.
Vacancy rates on the adjoining industrial estate are very low and the objector argues that the applicant has
not considered the supply of sites in the local area and argues that demand for this size of site is high.
In my previous report I stated the following:The issue of employment land supply is more complex than the assessment provided by the applicant
suggests. Their assessment concentrates on the supply of land at a City level. In addition to providing
employment opportunities at key locations in the City, (such as Salford Quays, Chapel Street, Agecroft etc)
it is considered important to provide more local employment opportunities, particularly in those areas
where unemployment is relatively high. Consequently, the Draft UDP allocates sites for employment in the
Walkden and Little Hulton area, such as land at Wharton Lane, and land at Clegg’s Lane, to augment the
existing estates such as Oakhill, and replace the declining Linnyshaw Industrial Estate.
The Restawhile site does have a role to play in this distribution of employment land across the area. More
importantly, Oakhill has a significant contribution to make and should therefore be protected from
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
development that could lead to its erosion. In these terms, the proposal can still be judged to be contrary to
Adopted UDP policy EC3 (Re-Use of Sites and Premises).
Since writing that report more than twelve months ago time has moved on and events have occurred that are
material to the assessment of this application. Firstly the industrial building that occupied the site was
demolished in the autumn of 2003. Secondly, planning permission has been granted in outline for
15,000sq.m of industrial floorspace on a 7.1 hectare site on the former Ashton’s Field Colliery in Little
Hulton.
The arguments on whether or not there would be any likely future demand for the site and whether there
would be a resulting material or unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites and/or premises available for
economic development relate closely to whether or not the development is in accordance with policies EC3
of the adopted UDP and E5 of the revised deposit draft UDP. Previously these arguments were finely
balanced and the recommendation was that the development of the site for housing would result in a
material shortfall in the range of sites available for economic development. I consider that the demolition of
the industrial building on the site has resulted in its value as an employment site being diminished. While
this has resulted from the applicant commencing development and while the City Council could have taken
enforcement action to remove the residential buildings from the site it is doubtful that the applicant could
have been required to reinstate the former factory. With regard to the recent planning permission on the
former Ashton’s Field Colliery, although this site is a long standing employment allocation the grant of
planning permission brings forward a significant amount of employment land in the local area.
I do not now consider that the development of this site for housing would result in the loss of an important
employment site resulting in a material shortfall in the range of sites available for economic development
and therefore the development is not contrary to policies EC3 of the adopted UDP and E5 of the revised
deposit draft replacement UDP.
Implications for the Oakhill Industrial Estate and the amenity of future occupiers.
Policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when
considering applications. These factors include the location and nature of the proposed development,
including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses and the potential level of environmental
pollution, including noise. Policy EN20 of the Adopted UDP states that environmentally sensitive
development, such as housing, will not normally be permitted where existing pollution is unacceptable
unless it can be demonstrated that the development includes sufficient measures to reduce the pollution to
an appropriate level. Policy EN14 of the revised deposit draft replacement plan states that in areas where
existing air pollution including dust, noise, odour, artificial light or vibration levels exceed local or national
standards, planning permission will only be granted for environmentally sensitive developments such as
housing, where the development incorporates adequate measures to ensure that there is no unacceptable risk
or nuisance to occupiers, and that they are provided with an appropriate and satisfactory level of amenity.
The objector argues most strongly that the development of this site for housing without adequate noise
mitigation measures to protect the amenity of future residents will have serious implications for the
continued success of the Oakhill Industrial Estate. The owners of the Estate have sought an independent
study of the original noise report submitted by the applicant. That study argues that there are deficiencies in
the applicant’s noise report and that since it was undertaken vacancy levels on the Estate have dropped
significantly. The study also considered that the mitigation measures outlined in the applicants noise study
are insufficient to create an acceptable residential environment for future residents.
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
On these issues of noise several meetings have now taken place with representatives from the City Council
and the applicants and principal objectors. Agreement has now been reached on the range of mitigation
measures that seek to ensure that as far as is practically possible future residents of the development will not
be affected by noise from the adjoining industrial estate. The condition that is attached regarding noise
mitigation is one that has been agreed by both applicant and objector.
Impact on the Footpath
Previously I recommended refusal on two grounds. The second reason related to the issue of the footpath.
Policy T10 of the adopted UDP states that the City Council will ensure that the needs of pedestrians are
given greater attention by a number of means that include improving pedestrian links between residential
areas and recreation areas. The revised application includes a 6m strip of land that enables this long disused
footpath to be reinstated and I therefore do not object to the application on those grounds.
Other Issues
I am satisfied that the proposed layout and design of the scheme is of a high quality in accordance with
policy DEV2 which requires that the City Council must be satisfied with the quality of design and
appearance of the development.
The proposed development provides interface distances between proposed properties that fall below the
City Council’s normal standards. I consider that the imaginative and high quality layout justifies a
relaxation of these normal standards in this instance.
I am satisfied that the combination of the public open space provided on the site and the financial
contribution that is to be made by the applicant satisfy policies H6 and H11 and draft policy H8 with regard
to children’s play facilities and the provision of informal open space.
I have no objections on highway grounds and am satisfied that the development has no significant
detrimental impact on any interest of acknowledged importance.
Value added to the Development
The provisions of open space and financial contributions towards the provision of childrens play area in the
local area.
CONCLUSION
Despite the rather complex background to this application I consider that the main issues are whether the
development will result in the loss of an important employment site and whether the development would
have serious implications for the Oakhill Industrial Estate and the amenity of future residential occupiers.
Closely allied to this is whether or not the development would comply with policies EC3 and E5.
I consider that the circumstances have changed over time and while matters are finely balanced I consider
that that the case on employment land supply is now not so strong as to justify refusal of the application. In
coming to this conclusion I have also taken into account the changes that this application makes to the
footpath issue. I have also taken into account all other relevant material considerations…..(cant read your
writing Sylvia sorry) I therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st 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 children’s equipped play space in the local area
to the value of £170,992;
-
that the applicant be informed that the City Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject
to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
-
that authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued, (subject to the
conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal agreement,
-
that authority be given to refuse the application if the applicant fails to complete the S106
agreement within a reasonable period on the grounds that the proposals would not be in accordance
with policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. The landscape scheme hereby approved shall be carried out within 12 months of the date of this
permission unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services 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.
2. Before any dwelling is occupied that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be laid out, drained,
surfaced and sealed to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services and shall thereafter be
made available at all times the premises are in use.
3. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the mitigation measures outlined in the letter from AEC
Acoustic and Engineering Consultants dated 21 September 2004 shall be carried out in full.
A verification report shall be submitted for the written approval of the Director of Development
Services that demonstrates compliance with the above requirements.
4. The footpath hereby approved shall be made available for use within six months of the date of this
permission unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services and shall be
maintained as such and open for use at all times.
5.
Full details of the layout, design, specification and management/maintenance of the areas of public
open space and park areas as shown on the approved site layout shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services within 6 months of the date of this permission. The
approved schemes shall be implemented within 6 months of the date of written approval unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
2. Standard Reason R013A Use of parking areas
3. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
4. Reason: In the interests of pedestrian access in accordance with policy T10 of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan.
5. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area and make provision for open space in accordance with
accordance with policies DEV 1, H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Unitary Development
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 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:
EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, EN7 Conservation of Trees and Woodlands, H1 Meeting Housing
Needs, H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, DEV1 Development
Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, EN10 Landscape, EN15 Environmental
Improvement Corridors.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
APPLICATION No:
04/48910/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Environmental Services Directorate
LOCATION:
Beech Farm Playing Fields (Moorside Park) Victoria Lane Swinton
PROPOSAL:
Construction of multi-sports facility including provision of synthetic
pitch, ballcourt together with associated floodlights and access path
WARD:
Swinton North
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a grassed area within Moorside Park. To the north is a pavilion and Moorside
Ranger’s clubhouse and car park, to the east a formal play ground, to the south is a bowling green, to the
west is an existing flood lit football facility. The wider site is bounded by mature trees beyond which area
residential properties.
It is proposed to provide synthetic pitch to provide a multi-sports facility and to fence the pitch with 3m and
1m high mesh fencing. The fencing would be powder coated blue with silver posts. The pitch would
measure 31m by 18.6m.
Access to the proposal would be provided off the main footpath through the park.
Four lighting columns would be erected to illuminate the facility. The columns would measure 7.8m and
would have two luminaries per column. The style of lighting is similar to those of the neighbouring site.
HISTORY
The following planning decisions relate to the adjoining sports facility:In 1991 planning approval was given to construct an all weather training area with the erection of
floodlights, E/27794. The floodlights were conditioned to 6pm to 8.30pm Tuesdays, Wednesdays and
Thursdays only.
In 1997 planning permission was granted to upgrade the all weather floodlit training facility to tarmacadam
surface and alterations to times of use of existing floodlights. 97/36262/FUL. It was conditioned such that
the floodlights could only be operated
9am and 9.30pm Mondays to Saturdays.
In 2001 planning permission was granted for the upgrading of football training facility to artificial grass
surface and erection of 2m high security fencing (01/42044/FUL)
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – no response
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Sport England – no response
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Advises that the proposal would be vulnerable and recommends that
the access points to the proposal be kept to a minimum. Also recommends good management of the hours
of use.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 23rd October 2004
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
11 Adelaide Street
2 – 56 (e) Browning Road
13 – 17 (o) Carden Avenue
1 – 19 (o) Deansway
29 – 35 (o) Heywood Street
St Charles RC Primary, Moorside Road
13 – 16 Napier Street
2 – 100 (e), 13, 15 Shelley Road
17 – 20 Sydney Street
20 – 22 (e), 61 – 79 (o) Victoria Lane
1 – 15 (o) Minstrel Close
REPRESENTATIONS
I have not received any representations in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, R4 Improvement of Recreation
Land and Facilities
FIRST DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, EHC1 Provision and Improvement of
Health and Community Facilities
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the provision of additional facilities with the park,
whether the proposal would have any detrimental impact upon the neighbouring residents and whether the
application accords with the relevant provisions of the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement
UDPs.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
Community facilities
Policy R4 seeks to improve the appearance and access to and use of parks and play areas.
Policy EHC1 states that planning permission will be granted for the improvement to existing facilities
providing that a number of factors are satisfied including impact upon residential amenity, impact on the
environmental quality and accessibility.
I consider that the provision of the facility is clearly supported by both the adopted and replacement
development plans.
Impact on residential amenity
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when considering
applications. These factors include the effect on neighbouring residents and the visual appearance of the
development.
Policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it has an unacceptable impact on the
amenity of neighbours.
The proposal would be located within an established and well used park. It would be located to an existing
illuminated sports facility and would maintain a similar distance to the closest residential properties. I have
attached a condition limiting the use of the floodlights to between 9am and 9.30pm Mondays to Saturdays
to match those of the neighbouring site. I such I do no consider that the lighting use would have any
detrimental impact upon the neighbouring residents. Furthermore, I have requested that the Council’s street
lighting engineer assess the proposed levels of luminance. I will report the findings to panel.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, as the site lies within the park, set over 100m away from the nearest residential properties,
screened by rows of mature trees and bushes, I am satisfied that there should be no adverse impact on the
amenity of the park or nearby residents and the scheme accords with the polices contained within the
development plan, there are no other material planning considerations which outweigh this view.
Therefore, I recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of development a lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Director of Development Services. The lighting scheme shall provide details of the level
of luminance across the pitch and level of light spillage outside of the area of the proposal. The
approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first use of the scheme and shall be maintained
thereafter to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services
3. The floodlights shall only be used between the hours of 9am and 9.30pm Mondays to Saturdays and at
no other time.
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
21st October 2004
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan set out below, and to all relevant material considerations,
including Supplementary Planning Guidance. There are no other material planning considerations that
outweigh this finding:
DEV1 - Development Criteria
R4 - Improvement of Recreation Land and Facilities
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.
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
72
21st October 2004