AMENDMENTS/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF THE DIRECTOR OF
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO THE PLANNING TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY
PANEL
PLANNING
APPLICATIONS AND
MATTERS
RELATED
DEVELOPMENT
CONTROL
PART I (AMENDMENTS)
SECTION 1 : APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
19th January 2006
APPLICATION No:
05/50913/FUL
APPLICANT:
Abito
LOCATION:
Land At Clippers Quay Trafford Road Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 290 residential units within a block ranging from 7 to
11 storeys with glazed roof canopy above, and 400 sq.m
floorspace for either retail shops or office accommodation and 87
parking spaces
WARD:
Ordsall
OBSERVATIONS:
Amendment Report Prior to Planning and Transport Regulatory Panel Meeting 19th January 2006
I have received two additional letters of objection.
The first letter is from a resident of Merchants Quay who objects to the time of the Panel meeting
at 10:00 as they consider nobody will be able to attend at this time. The objector is also concerned
about loss of value to his property if this application were approved. The objector considers that
the apartments would not sell and the area will return to the docks with existing houses being
unable to be sold. The objector considers that the Quays are full and that there are no local
amenities and infers the site should be developed with a library and social amenities. The objector
also considers there is not enough parking proposed and the Quays will be clogged up with traffic
as a result of this scheme.
In response I consider the proposed parking level has been discussed below and that I am satisfied
with the parking level together with the free one year travel pass, community parking scheme for
Merchants Quay and travel plan for the development. I have no highway objections to the
proposal. Whilst a library and social amenity uses may be acceptable at this site the submitted
-1-
application proposes uses which I consider are consistent with the existing and emerging planning
framework. The value of property is not a material planning consideration.
The second objection has been submitted on behalf of Harbourside Marina PLC who have stated
they have a long lease ownership interest in the dockside walkway in front of the Abito application
and a strip of land 12 metres wide by 55 metres long between the Abito site and the Optimum
House office block to the west. Harbourside Marina explain they intend to develop house boats on
South Bay. The letter also explains their intention to develop the strip of land between Abito and
Optimum House for 3 levels of car parking, serviced by a lift, with development above. The letter
explains 3 levels of parking would be required as a minimum. Harbourside Marina explain their
objections to the application are that:
o their objections should be heard by Panel;
o the site density at 940 dwellings per hectare and near 100% plot coverage together with the
scale and mass of the development is too much;
o the Abito application, given its habitable room windows (of 74 apartments) to the western
elevation are 2.4m from the boundary with balconies 0.9m from the boundary, would stifle
the development of the 12m wide by 55m wide strip of land and its airspace above ground
level;
o the Abito proposal would preclude the development of house boats as three levels of
parking are required;
o the Abito scheme does not contribute to a comprehensive redevelopment of Clippers Quay,
as it has been submitted in isolation of any other site, and is contrary to policy DEV6 as it
prevents redevelopment of an adjacent site
o address a restrictive covenant provided by Abito that shows the land can not be developed
and must remain open for unrestricted access by stating the covenant would be no longer
enforceable and if it were Harbourside Marina would apply for it to be removed.
In response, as stated in the main body of the report, I consider that the scale, mass and density of
the development is appropriate with regard to the site and its location within the mixed use area of
this part of Salford Quays.
Policy DES1, under point vi) requires regard to be had to the potential impact of the proposed
development on the redevelopment of an adjacent site. On the question of whether the Abito
application stifles development of the 12m wide strip of land I am of the opinion that development
would not necessarily be precluded at ground and first floor levels. This is due to the west
elevation of the Abito proposal at ground and mezzanine level being car parking areas. Above this
level the Abito application does have windows facing westward toward the 12m wide strip of land.
Any future planning application on the 12m by 55m strip owned by Harbourside Marina would be
judged on its merits against the prevailing planning policies and other material planning
considerations at the time. Parking standards of the City Council reflect those of Central
Government Guidance by imposing maximum parking standards. From a planning policy
perspective parking associated with any future planning application for house boats would not
necessarily require the level of parking stipulated by Harbourside Marina. I am of the opinion that
this proposal would not preclude the development of pontoons and house boats in south bay and
would not necessarily, subject to material considerations, preclude some development of this land.
I do not consider that this current application is contrary to policy DES1.
-2-
The 12m wide strip of land currently provides unrestricted access from Clippers Quay to the
Dockside. Whilst this current access to the Dockside is not a public right of way its existing use
would need to be considered in the event of a future application on this site. I do not consider that
the existing use as an access route would be affected by the proposed development.
”
“
With regard to policy DEV6 and whether this application is premature I have discussed this matter
in the main body of the report. I stated: Draft policy DEV6 states that on sites within or
immediately adjacent to an area identified for major development, planning permission will not be
granted for incremental development that would unacceptably hamper or reduce the development
options for that wider area. The policy states that in some circumstances it may be appropriate for
redevelopment to be resisted until a masterplan has been produced for the wider site. There are
currently no plans for a masterplan for the Dock 6 area and this would potentially involve a lengthy
process. As the Councils architectural advisor considers the scheme to be acceptable I recommend
this application be assessed on its merits without the need for a masterplan first. The proposal
maintains reasonable distances from its neighbouring sites and I consider it would not necessarily
hamper or reduce the development options for the wider Dock 6 area .
Whilst the proposed development is adjacent to the 12m by 55m strip of land it would not
necessarily prevent some form of development, subject to any other material considerations, on
that land in connection with Harbourside Marinas proposal to develop house boats.
Whilst the issue of the restrictive covenant can be a material planning consideration I understand
from the objectors letter that the covenant can be lifted and would be a matter between respective
landowners.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Members will recall that at the Planning and Transport Regulatory Panel Meeting of the 3 rd
November 2005 this application was deferred for the applicant to supply further information.
Members required further information in respect of:
o
o
o
o
Travel Plan;
Model showing the development in context;
More detail on sustainable construction and drainage;
Consideration of car parking scheme at Merchants Quay.
Members also required that once additional information had been submitted that residents be
consulted over these changes. The applicant has submitted additional information and objectors
and neighbours have been re-consulted.
Changes to the Scheme following the 3rd November 2005 Panel
Increased Parking
The applicant has increased the height of the building by 1.4m and has introduced a second level of
parking, on a mezzanine level, which has increased on site parking from 52 to 87 car parking
-3-
spaces. The height has increased from 40.5m to 41.9m. Five disabled spaces are proposed within
the 87 spaces. Cycle and motorcycle parking facilities are also proposed.
Travel Plan
The applicant has also submitted a revised travel plan which introduces measures to reduce car
use, maximise public transport use by the provision of information, pedestrian and cycle facilities.
The travel plan includes actions to monitor and encourage walking, cycling and public transport
use. The travel plan relates to both future employees of business and residents of the proposed
building.
Method Statement for Community Parking Scheme
The applicant has also submitted a method statement for an investigation into a community
parking scheme at Merchants Quay. The scheme seeks to investigate current parking problems at
Merchants Quay and to identify possible traffic management solutions. The method statement
explains that occupancy surveys and vehicle registration plate surveys would be would be
undertaken along with site surveys to assess whether a residents or community (residents and
business) parking scheme would be beneficial. Such a scheme would then have to undergo a public
consultation process to determine whether residents would be in favour of such a scheme.
Shadow Analysis for Increase in Height of 1.4 metres
The shadow analysis has been updated to reflect the increase in height of 1.4 metres. The results
show there is not a significant change in shadow upon properties of Merchants Quay from the
building as previously submitted to the Panel.
Model showing the development in context
The applicant has stated he is preparing a contextual model that shall be displayed at the meeting.
Detail on sustainable construction and drainage
“
The applicant has explained in his letter dated 21st November one of the issues raised at the
Committee was the potential for grey water recycling. We have considered this matter in some
depth. Any grey water recycling would require a tank together with a pumping and distribution
system to the ground floor commercial units. Given that the water use on the ground floor
commercial units is relatively low it has become clear from our considerations that the embodied
energy in digging out and creating the tank and distribution system and the ongoing energy of
pumping the grey water would outweigh any environmental benefits that the use of the grey water
”
could provide.
Objections received following further consultation
I have received 6 objections maintaining objections to the amended scheme. The objections
include a letter from the Merchants Quay Residents Association signed by 9 people. The issues
raised are:
o Development will lead to displacement of car parking,
o Other recent developments in the area have 100% car parking,
-4-
o This development would set a precedent for inadequate parking,
o Free travel would only be for one year,
o If future residents of this scheme will walk to the tram stop they will walk just as far to park
their cars on Merchants Quay,
o Parking on Merchants Quay is already a problem,
o The proposed glass and steel building is out of context with the area,
o The proposal will drive tourists away from Salford Quays,
o The development is out of context as it will provide transient low cost housing,
o The proposal will impinge upon future development of the waterside including house boats
and boats for business.
o Proposed development by Abito is for a predominantly high density residential which is
out of character with the surrounding area and is very close to, and directly overlooking
adjoining landowners land.
Planning Appraisal of Amendments to the Scheme
I am satisfied that the travel plan has been drawn up in accordance with current best practice and
would help to minimise car use. The applicants proposed funding of an investigation of the current
parking problems at the Merchants Quay area and the identification of possible Traffic
Management solutions together with the submitted method statement are acceptable and can be
controlled through a S106 Obligation. Whilst objectors would rather that one parking space per flat
or as provided within the development the proposed increase in car parking to 87 spaces is within
the Council’s maximum parking standards. I consider the combination of increased on site
parking, proximity of the site to Metrolink, one year free travel pass per flat, funding of a study of
residents parking on Merchants Quay and travel plan represent a significant improvement in the
scheme.
The revised shadow analysis shows the increase in height of 1.4m does not significantly impact
upon the amenity of properties of Merchants Quay above that discussed in the report below. The
applicant has also submitted a contextual drawing which supplements the existing drawings. As
such I find the impact of the height and mass of the building to be acceptable.
The applicant has confirmed photovoltaic cells will be introduced to the building which would be
used to provide energy from the sun for lighting of communal and balcony areas within the
development. The applicant has stated that grey water recycling would result in more energy being
used as a result of the pumping of water around the building and initial works to install the system.
I have requested the applicant provides his calculations for consideration of the Panel. I am
satisfied the photovoltaic cells would be in accordance with the general thrusts of policy EN17a.
I am satisfied that the additional information the developer has submitted addresses the issues
raised by the Panel on the 3rd November 2005 except for the recycling of water for which further
information is awaited. Subject to this information being acceptable I recommend the application
be approved subject to the following conditions at the end of this report and that the Strategic
Director of Customer and Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement
-5-
under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of
improved local open space/play equipment, one free one year travel pass for each flat and funding
of a community parking scheme for Merchants Quay up to the value of £20,000.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AMENDMENT REPORT FOR PANEL AGENDA 3RD NOVEMBER 2005
Since writing my report I have amended condition 2, which relates to the use of the ground floor
units. I have also added a condition requiring a travel plan. Members are asked to note this change.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land on Clippers Quay on the site of the former Waterside Public House.
The site is bounded by the three storey Copthorne Hotel to the east, four storey office block
Optmium House to the west, former Cinema site to the south and Dock 6 to the north. The existing
dockside walkway separates the site from the Dock. On the other side of dock 6, 80 metres to the
north of this site, is the residential development of Merchants Quay, which consists of low-level
two and three storey housing.
The site covers an area of 0.3 hectares. The applicant proposes to erect an eleven storey building
fronting Dock 6 which would rake down to seven storeys fronting Clippers Quay. The footprint of
the building is roughly square in shape and would be built to the edge of the site boundary. The
building would comprise 282 studio apartments and 8 two-bedroom apartments at first floor level
and above. An internal courtyard area is proposed in the middle of the building with access to the
apartments from this courtyard. Fronting Clippers Quay at ground floor would be a commercial
unit 100sq.m. Access to the residential units and access to the parking area is also from Clippers
Quay. Fronting the dockside walkway there would be 300sq.m. of commercial floorspace at
ground floor level. The building would be set back from the dockside by 8.3 metres.
There would be one access point for residents on the south elevation. Waste and recycling facilities
would be at the side of the building on the west elevation. The car parking area is at ground floor
level with concierge, post room and an internal communal courtyard being contained in the centre
of the building on a raised podium, within an atrium. The building would be topped by a fabric roof
canopy supported by metal posts and cables, which would cover the internal courtyard.
The apartments are specifically designed to offer cheaper ‘city centre’ residential accommodation
to young professionals and they would be approximately 25% less expensive than equivalent one
bedroom apartments in the city centre. Each studio apartment would have a balcony and would
comprise one room separated into various parts by a freestanding central unit that houses all the
services. The elevations will comprise full height and width glazing behind the balconies.
The application has been submitted with a planning statement, design statement, shadow analysis
and wind conditions report. The planning statement seeks to justify the development with regard to
local and national planning policies. The shadow analysis shows the existing shadow situation
without the proposed building, shadow impacts with the building and has been updated to show the
-6-
impact of shadow if the building had been rotated through 180 degrees. The shadow report has
been produced for December, September and June. The wind report states that wind conditions are
expected to be tolerable, or better, for leisure walking in the worst case wind scenario.
The applicant, Abito, has also submitted information relating to the Abito development at Gravel
Lane, which members will recall was approved by Panel in October 2004 (reference
04/48765/FUL).
SITE HISTORY
In 2003, planning permission was granted for the retention of a temporary car park and retention of
temporary 2.4 metre high fencing and gates. Permission was granted until December 2004.
(03/46752/FUL)
In 2004, planning permission was granted for the retention of a car park for a temporary period.
Permission was granted until 10th November 2005. (04/49198/FUL).
There is also a current application for the retention of a car park for a temporary period
(05/51415/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections recommends a contaminated land condition,
condition requiring a noise assessment and a condition limiting the fixed plant and machinery to
not exceed background noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive property. No comments were
received with regard to recycling facilities.
United Utilities – No comments received.
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council – No comments received.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – The site is a key gateway location. The submitted
schematic plan is welcomed. How does this development fit next to the Copthorne Hotel? East and
west elevations at ground floor level appear sterile due to the tall louvres, commercial activity at
these levels would be more desirable. Concern over the fin walls and would like to know the views
of the Councils architectural advisor on the scheme.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle but as a landfill site is identified within 250
metres of the site recommend a comprehensive landfill gas site investigation be carried out.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – No known features of archaeological importance on the
site.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Unit – Concern over the external parking area this
should have some form of boundary treatment. Recommend internal connection to recycling
facilities. Secure entry system is needed into the car park. Roller shutters and lighting should meet
standards. Recommend the canopy be raised in height to allow driving rain in so that persons are
-7-
discouraged from loitering. Party boundaries should be at least 1.5m in height. Recommends
application be refused.
GMPTE – The site is well located in relation to public transport and the site benefits from its close
proximity to Exchange Quay Metrolink Eccles to Manchester Line. The site is also within walking
distance of the nearest bus stops on Trafford Road. Future residents, employees and visitors of the
proposed development would therefore have access to a genuine choice of travel mode which
should help to reduce the amount of car travel otherwise generated by this development. In an area
well served by public transport such as Salford Quays, the aspiration should be to have a reduced
amount of car parking in new developments in order to assist in the promotion of more sustainable
travel patterns, and to capitalise on the advantages of the public transport provision in the area. It is
therefore encouraging to note the low level of car parking provision accompanying this
application, this should also help reduce the amount of car travel that could otherwise be
associated with this development. It should therefore be ensured that car parking provision does
not increase with any future amended details or resubmission of this application. GMPTE also
suggest additional measures to be incorporated by the applicant to raise awareness of public
transport services in the area by:
o Provision of public transport information to occupants of the new development,
o Provision of a free one year travel pass for each residential unit,
o Development of a site intranet with public transport information,
o Personalised journey planning,
o Improving access to, or increasing capacity of, public transport facilities.
Peter Hunter – Confusion over the trees on the quayside. Satisfied with the design following
amended elevations.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
29 to 77 odd Merchants Quay
Optimum House, Clippers Quay
Regatta House, Clippers Quay
Clippers House, Clippers Quay
Copthorne Hotel, Clippers Quay
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received fourteen letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
Objections have been received from residents of Merchants Quay, Legendary Property Company
who own the adjacent Clippers House Office block and also from the Merchants Quay Residents
Association. The following issues have been raised:o Parking is insufficient and will result in on street parking especially in Merchants Quay
-8-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Appearance. The design is not appropriate.
Height is much taller than surrounding buildings
Anything above 5 storeys would be out of character
Impact of shadowing. Shadow will be cast
Privacy will be lost to houses on Merchants Quay
Whole area is overdeveloped
As the apartments are lower cost the quality of the tenants will be lower
The development will not be affordable
Impact may be better if the building were rotated through 180 degrees.
The number of units should be reduced
I have also received three letters of support, from the Manchester Ship Canal Company and the
Copthorne Hotel.
I have also received a letter of support from Hulley and Kirkwood Consulting Engineers. The letter
states the company wish to relocate to the proposed office space within this development. The
company are currently based in Castelfield.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY.
SD1 – The North West Metropolitan Area Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
DP3 - Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H1
Housing Supply, H6 & H11 Open Space Provision.
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICIES
Site Specific: MX1/3 Development in Mixed Use Areas – Salford Quays
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, H1 Supply of Housing, H8 Open Space Provision
Associated with New Housing Development, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES5 Tall
Buildings, DES6 Waterside Development, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in
New Developments, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime, DEV6
Incremental Development, EN17A Resource Conservation.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the development
is acceptable, whether the whether the design of the building is of sufficiently high quality in this
important part of the city, impact of shadow and privacy, whether there is sufficient parking, open
space provision and whether the proposals are premature.
-9-
Principle of the Development
Policy H1 requires that an adequate supply of housing is brought forward with higher densities
being required at accessible locations such as this site. Policy H1 also requires development to
contribute toward a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of size, type, tenure
and affordability. Draft policy MX1 states that the wider area that includes this site will be
developed as vibrant mixed use areas with a broad range of uses and activities and that in
determining the appropriate mix of uses on individual sites regard will be had to a number of
factors. These factors include the positive impact that the proposed development could have on
the regeneration of the wider area; the use on adjoining sites and the extent to which the proposed
development would support the objective of maintaining a mix and balance of uses throughout the
mixed use area; the contribution that the proposed development would make towards securing
activity in the area throughout the day.
The proposal itself has a mix, albeit weighted toward studio flats, of size of unit. Within the
Salford Quays area there are no other developments either existing or proposed that offer this size
of accommodation. The intended retail/commercial units offer activity at ground floor level. The
proposed mix of uses is in accordance with policies H1 and MX1/3 and I consider the proposed
uses, subject to a restriction to retail uses and office use, would provide positive redevelopment of
this underused site.
Design
Policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission unless it is
satisfied with the quality of design and the visual appearance of the development. Draft policy
DES1 states that developments will be required to respond to their physical context, respect the
positive character of the local area and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness via a
number of factors that include the scale and size of the building, its contribution in the street scene
and the quality of the proposed materials.
The nature of the building, one-bedroomed apartments that all have a balcony, has to a
considerable degree dictated what the elevations will look like. The architects for the scheme have
sought to achieve a high quality of design. I agree with the URC that the louvres at ground floor
will not present a welcoming pedestrian level and should be screened by soft landscaping which
could be positioned adjacent to the louvres. Plants/shrubs would also help to filter pollution from
exhaust fumes and would still allow the car park to be naturally ventilated. I consider this can be
resolved through the imposition of a condition. Peter Hunter supports the scheme and as such I am
satisfied the appearance of the building will be of a sufficiently high standard of design, subject to
the louvres at ground floor level being screened by soft landscaping.
Shadowing and Privacy
Policy DEV1 requires that shadowing be taken into account and DES7 states development will not
be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users
of other development.
- 10 -
The submitted shadow report does show shadowing, as a result of this development, to residential
properties on Merchants Quay between 10:00 and 15:00 in December. The shadow cast from this
development would move west to east gradually through the day. At 10:00 properties 55 to 73 odd
Merchants Quay would be in shadow, at 11:00 properties 39 to 67 odd Merchants Quay would be
in shadow, at 12:00 31 to 49 odd Merchants Quay would be in shadow, at 13:00 9 to 37 odd
Merchants Quay would be in shadow, 14:00 1 to 31 odd would be in shadow, at 15:00 number 1
Merchants Quay would be in shadow.
The shadowing scenario without the development produces a shadow to 75 and 77 Merchants
Quay at 10:00, this shadow is cast by the adjacent four storey Optimum House office block. In
September with the proposed building in the model, the report shows the building would not cast a
shadow onto Merchants Quay with the same result evident in June.
The submitted shadow report has been amended to show the impact of shadow should the building
have been rotated through 180 degrees, as suggested by an objector. The shadowing impact is no
different to houses on Merchants Quay that are adjacent to Dock 6.
Whilst there is undoubtedly shadow impact to houses on Merchants Quay in December there is no
impact at the equinox (March and September). As the negative impact is limited to winter, when
occupiers are less likely to be using outside space, I find the impact of shadow to be on balance
acceptable. In terms of privacy I consider the separation distance of 80 metres across Dock 6 to
properties on Merchants Quay to be acceptable with regards to privacy of occupiers of properties
on Merchants Quay.
Parking & Public Transport
I have received objection to the level of parking proposed from residents of Merchants Quay and
from the Merchants Quay residents association. Residents of Merchants Quay fear that occupiers
of this proposed development will park their cars on Merchants Quay, as happens when
Manchester United play at home. As stated above GMPTE consider the parking levels proposed to
be acceptable and would not like a higher level of parking. In terms of highway safety I have no
objections to the submitted scheme. Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks
maximum parking standards for all developments. Within the emerging planning framework there
is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.
Policy A10 requires that developers investigate measures to reduce the need for car parking
provision and states on street parking measures could be introduced to restrict displacement of car
parking. I am advised by my highway engineer that Merchants Quay is not appropriate for a
residents parking scheme. GMPTE explain there is a choice of travel options to and from this site I
consider the provision of a one year travel pass per residential unit to be essential to establishing
sustainable travel patterns. In line with the suggestion of GMPTE the developer has agreed to enter
into a legal agreement to provide free one year travel passes for the Metrolink and local buses.
Subject to such an agreement being reached I am satisfied with the proposed level of parking.
Design and Crime Issues
- 11 -
The architectural liaison unit has suggested the application should be refused. I do not agree that
the main canopy should be altered to allow the weather to penetrate otherwise useable incidental
amenity space. I agree that there should be defensible space around the external parking area but
this could be integrated into the soft landscaping scheme rather than by enclosing this area with
railings. I consider that the provision of a secure entry system can be included through the use of
condition. I consider subject to appropriate conditions to secure the above the application is in
accordance with policies DEV4 and DES11.
Sustainable Construction
Policy EN17a of the deposit draft UDP explains planning permission will not be granted if the
development will have an unacceptable impact on the conservation of non-renewable resources. In
response to this policy the applicant has confirmed the following measures will be included with
the building:
The concrete wall construction method provides a good thermal mass reducing energy use.
”
“
The building is constructed using improved U values over and above building control
levels.
The lighting of the apartments utilises up lighters enabling the use of low energy
luminaries, reducing energy use.
The residential apartments, offices and central amenity space are naturally ventilated
reducing energy use and emissions.
The orientation & thermal modelling of the building specifically utilises solar gain
reducing energy use and the need for mechanical heating and ventilation reducing
emissions. This also creates a healthy living & working environment.
The developer and building owner, Abito, will procure power via a Green Tariff Provider,
drawing on renewable energy sources.
All balcony and terrace lighting will be provided utilising power from Photo Voltaic Cells,
a renewable source of energy.
The apartments sanitary ware will include water flow control devices.
All timber used in the building will be Forrest Stewardship Approved.
I consider the above measures are to be welcomed and will help to reduce the impact of the
building on non-renewable resources.
Prematurity
Draft policy DEV6 states that on sites within or immediately adjacent to an area identified for
major development, planning permission will not be granted for incremental development that
would unacceptably hamper or reduce the development options for that wider area. The policy
states that in some circumstances it may be appropriate for redevelopment to be resisted until a
masterplan has been produced for the wider site. There are currently no plans for a masterplan for
the Dock 6 area and this would potentially involve a lengthy process. As the Councils architectural
advisor considers the scheme to be acceptable I recommend this application be assessed on its
merits without the need for a masterplan first. The proposal maintains reasonable distances from
- 12 -
its neighbouring sites and I consider it would not necessarily hamper or reduce the development
options for the wider Dock 6 area.
Open Space Provision
Each apartment has a small amount of incidental amenity space via a balcony and access to the
internal courtyard area. In accordance with policies H6, H11 and H8 of the revised deposit draft
UDP and SPG7 open space and children’s play space can be accommodated off site through a
financial contribution. This application proposes 588 bedspaces, which equates to a commuted
sum value of £227,911.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the policies H6, H11, H8 and SPG7, the applicant has agreed to make a
financial contribution towards childrens play space, open space or local environmental
improvements. A total of £227,911 would be contributed in this regard. The applicant has agreed
to fund, albeit with a small contribution from future occupiers, a one year travel pass. The
applicant has also confirmed the use of some sustainable building techniques.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the main issues are whether the design of the proposed building is acceptable, the
impact of shadow and whether there is sufficient parking proposed. I am satisfied that the design is
acceptable and that the application would not hamper or reduce the development options for the
wider area. I am also satisfied that the impact of shadow is acceptable and that the level of on site
parking is acceptable subject to the above mentioned legal agreement. I am satisfied that the
application complies with policies of the development plan as a whole.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve subject to the following conditions and that the Strategic Director of Customer and
Support Services be given authority to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the provision of improved local open space/play
equipment and one free one year travel pass for each flat.
Conditions
1. Standard Condition A01 Five year time limit
2. The use of the ground floor units, as annotated as commercial units on ground floor plan
(0-)A003/D, shall relate only to the use for retail uses and office uses within Class A1, A2, A3,
A4, A5 or B1; of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2005.
3. Standard Condition M08 Site Investigation - new
4. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. The scheme to be
submitted, shall include details of trees to be planted along the dockside walkway, details of
- 13 -
the tree pits which should not protrude above ground level, and shall include details of a soft
landscape screening to the louvres at ground floor level along the west and east elevations.
Such scheme shall also include full details of shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and
surface treatment. Once approved such scheme shall be carried out within twelve months; of
the commencement of development and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority. Any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be
replaced to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
5. Prior to the commencement of development the applicant shall submit for written approval an
assessment of noise likely to affect the application site. The assessment should follow PPG24
guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road and tram network including
Trafford Road, and any other local 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 and achieve the requirements
of BS8233 for internal noise levels. Consideration shall also be given to achieving adequate
rapid ventilation and Summer cooling whilst achieving the requirements of BS28233:1999. If
deemed necessary, alternative ventilation measures shall be identified and incorporated into
the noise assessment report. Once agreed, all identified noise control measures shall be
implemented prior to occupation and shall be thereafter retained.
6. Noise from fixed plant and machinery on the site (LAeq,t) shall not exceed the background
level (LA90,t) at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive properties at any time.
7. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not be started by the undertaking
of a material operation as defined in Section 56(4)(a-d) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 until a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990 has been made and lodged with the Local Planning Authority, and the Local Planning
Authority has given its approval in writing. The planning obligation will provide that a
commuted sum as required by Policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP 1995,
H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003 and SPG7 Provision of Open Space
and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development will be paid to the Local
Planning Authority for open space and recreation space purposes. The planning obligation will
also provide that each residential unit is supplied with a one year travel pass for buses and
Metrolink in accordance with policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan
2003. The planning obligation will also provide that a financial contribution of up to ｣ 20,000
will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for the funding of an investigation into a
community parking scheme on Merchants Quay.
8. No A3, A4 or A5 retail unit shall be brought into use unless and until a detailed scheme for the
extraction system which treats fumes and odours before their emission to the atmosphere so as
to render them innocuous has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The scheme shall detail how the extraction unit will be attenuated and mounted to
minimise the transmission of airbourne and structure bourne noise and vibration. The works
forming the approved scheme shall be completed entirely in accordance with the approved
scheme and thereafter the works forming the approved scheme shall at all times remain in
place.
- 14 -
9. The car parking parking, disabled parking spaces and cycle parking spaces shown on the
submitted plan(s) shall be made available at all times in connection with the use of the
premises, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
10. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit, for the approval of the
Local Planning Authority, a scheme to detail measures to ensure entrances are operated on a
secure entry system. Once approved the scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation
of the residential units hereby approved in accordance with the approved scheme and the
scheme shall be thereafter maintained.
11. Prior to the first occupation of development the developer shall submit a scheme for the
written approval of the Local Planning Authority detailing the proposed artwork within atrium
and details of the lightbox to the south elevation. Once approved the scheme shall be carried
out within 12 months of the occupation of the development and thereafter shall be maintained.
12. 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 Local
Planning Authority.
13. The site shall be treated in accordance with a lighting scheme which shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. The scheme to be
submitted, shall include details of lighting columns or bollards or lighting fixed to the building
and details of the luminance levels of such lighting. Once approved such scheme shall be
carried out prior to the first occupation of the development; and thereafter shall be maintained.
14. The submitted Travel Plan, dated 25th November 2005, shall be implemented in accordance
with the stated Objectives and Targets, Mode Choice Initiatives, Process for Implementation,
Monitoring and Review Mechanisms and Marketing and Communication sections unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
15. Prior to the commencement of development the developer shall submit a scheme for the
written approval of the Local Planning Authority to detail the incorporation of photovoltaic
system to the roofs of the developments hereby approved. Such photovoltaic system shall be
used to provide energy for the development hereby approved. Prior to the occupation of any
retail, business or residential unit the approved scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be
retained and maintained.
Reasons:
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Reason: The site is in an area where industrial uses would not normally be permitted, regard
has been given to the particular nature of the proposed use in accordance with policy DEV 1 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and MX1/3 Deposit Draft Unitary Development
- 15 -
Plan.
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted UDP
1995 and H8 and provides a contribution towards the use of mutli modal travel to and from the
site in accordance with policy A10 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. To ensure that the development is accessible for people with disabilities in accordance with
policy DEV 5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and policy A10 of the Salford
City Council Draft Deposit Unitary Development Plan.
10. Reason: To safeguard the security of the area in accordance with policy DEV4 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan and DES11 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development
Plan.
11. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
12. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
13. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
14. In the interests of moving towards sustainability, reducing environmental pollution and
promoting energy conservation in accordance with Policy A1 of the Revised Replacement
Draft City of Salford Unitary Development Plan .
15. In order to provide recycling facilities in accordance with policy DEV1 and EN20 of the City
of Salford Unitary Development Plan and EN17a of the Salford City Council Deposit Draft
UDP.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
- 16 -
2. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Environment
Directorate (Tel: (0161) 737 0551
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. Construction works should not take place outside the following hours: Monday to Friday
inclusive 08:00 to 18:00, Saturdays 08:00 to 13:00. Construction works should not be
undertaken on Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays. Access and egress for delivery vehicles
should be restricted to the working hours indicated above.
5. This approval shall relate to the application as supplemented by submitted letters from Drivers
Jonas, on behalf of the applicant, dated 28 September 2005, 7th October 2005 and 19th
October 2005 and to the amended plans as received on the 21st November 2005 and 5th
December 2005.
APPLICATION No:
05/51225/FUL
APPLICANT:
JPS Real Estate Ltd
LOCATION:
70 Upper Park Road Salford M7 4JA
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a four storey building comprising six apartments
together with basement car parking, landscaping and
construction of new vehicular access
WARD:
Kersal
OBSERVATIONS:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing my report I have received four further letters regarding the amendments made to the
application. All either refer to issues already raised or state that their original objections still stand.
I have also attached an additional condition regarding drainage issues.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- 17 -
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing detached two-storey dwelling set within large grounds
extending to 0.23 hectare in area. While the existing building is two-storey it does have
accommodation within the roof. Although the surrounding area is predominantly residential in
character there are non-residential uses to the immediate north of the site and further to the west.
To the south, opposite the site are detached houses and the two immediate neighbours to east and
west are also large detached properties. To the north of the rear of the site is a two/three-storey
1960s apartment buildings. There are other apartment buildings on Upper Park Road further to the
east and west. The site contains a number of mature trees on all four boundaries many of which to
the front boundary are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).
Of the 27 trees on the site it is proposed to remove four trees, three of which are protected by TPO
No. 4.
It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and erect a total of six apartments in a
predominantly three-storey building. In addition to the three main levels of accommodation there
would be nine car parking spaces at basement level and the top floor flats would have a
conservatory and terrace at roof level. This top level would be set back some 14m from the front
main wall of the proposed building.
A new access, located more centrally on the plot frontage, would be provided from Upper Park
Road.
The building would be of very contemporary design and would have a flat roof. The building has
been designed so as to present a narrow frontage to the street with the greater bulk of the building
being set back 8.5m from the front face of the building. The building is set the same distance back
from the road frontage (18m) as the existing dwelling. In terms of height the third floor roof would
be just 76cm higher than the height of the roof of the existing building. This is 54cm higher than
72 Upper Park Road and 1.4m lower than no.68. All of the apartments would be large
three-bedroomed dwellings.
The main material would be brick with sandstone features, black aluminium window frames, slate
sills and glazed balconies.
SITE HISTORY
Consent has already been granted to fell three trees that are protected by TPO and that
are numbered T3,T26 and T28 on the site layout plan. These trees were all in poor and
/or unsafe condition (04/48923/TPO)
CONSULTATIONS
- 18 -
Environment Agency – No objections in principle
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle but requests that conditions be
attached with regard to lighting and to noise from the lift.
PUBLICITY
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
41 to 45, 68, 72 and 74 Upper Park Road
Flats A to K Penryn Court and flats 1 to 9 Haslam Court and 72 Singleton Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 7 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:Loss of light
Overlooking and loss of privacy
Subsidence
Lack of parking and increase in highway danger
Out of character (and comparison with Penryn Court is not valid)
Problems with drainage
Noise and disturbance during construction
Refuse bins will cause nuisance
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: DEV10 Broughton Park Development Control Policy
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
- 19 -
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 Location of New Development
INSPECTOR’S REPORT
Draft Policy H1 - recommended a number of changes but the thrust of the policy remains largely
the same.
Draft Policy DES1– recommended only relatively minor amendments
Draft Policy DES11 - recommended no changes to this policy.
Draft Policy A10 - recommended only relatively minor amendments
ST11 – recommended re-wording to give priority to the re-use/conversion of existing buildings
where they are sound and worthy of reuse and/or of architectural or historic interest and their
re-use is effective.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider the main issues in the determination of the application to be: whether the principle of the
use is acceptable; whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of
neighbouring residents; whether the design of the proposed building is acceptable; whether the
proposed level of car parking is acceptable; whether the proposal would be satisfactorily secure;
and whether the proposed development accords with the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft
Replacement UDP. I shall deal with each in turn below.
Principle of Development
Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to the location of new development, which gives
priority to previously developed land ahead of greenfield land. In his report the Inspector has
recommended that the policy be amended to give priority to the re-use/conversion of existing
buildings where they are sound and worthy of reuse and/or of architectural or historic interest
ahead of other previously developed land.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 states that local planning authorities should avoid the inefficient
use of land and that this means that new development should normally be at a density of between
30 and 50 dwellings per hectare.
The site is currently occupied by a two-storey building that has a timber frame construction. The
applicant submitted a supporting statement that conversion and/or extension of this type of
building would be extremely difficult. I am satisfied with this justification for not reusing the
existing buildings and therefore I am of the opinion that the proposed development is in
- 20 -
accordance with the sequential approach to the location of new development outlined in Policy
ST11 and the Inspectors Report and that this does not conflict with adopted policy DEV10.
I do not have any objections to the demolition of the existing building as, although it does have a
very pleasing appearance and some charm, the site is not located within a Conservation Area and
the building itself, although it is on the local list of buildings of architectural, archaeological or
historic interest (category C – lowest category), does not have sufficient architectural merit nor
does it have any ‘special’ history that makes it worthy of listing or re-use.
The application site is located in a predominantly residential area and I am therefore of the opinion
that the use of the land for residential purposes would be compatible with surrounding land uses.
Adopted Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city’s housing stock is
able to meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford by promoting a number of
measures, including the release of land to accommodate new house building.
Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.
The surrounding area comprises predominantly large detached dwellings and a few apartment
buildings. In his supporting statement the applicant has said that there is a particular demand for
large apartments in this part of the city and I see no reason to disagree with this claim. I am
therefore of the opinion that the proposed development would contribute to the provision of a mix
of dwelling types in the area, in accordance with policies H1. I therefore consider the principle of
the proposed development to be acceptable.
Amenity of neighbours and future residents
Adopted Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard should be had in the
determination of planning applications. Of most relevance to this application is the location of the
proposed development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size and
density of the proposed development and the impact on neighbouring residents.
Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development that would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
- 21 -
All habitable room windows are set a minimum of 10m from every boundary. In addition the
boundaries of the site are characterised by significant mature tree and shrub planting that provide
significant screening. The habitable room window to window distances are in excess of 32m to the
rear and in excess of 40m the front of the site. Those windows in the proposed building that were
closer than 10m have been amended to be obscurely glazed. In addition the sides of the glazed
balconies have been raised in height to 1.7m and obscurely glazed in order to prevent overlooking
and loss of privacy from the balconies. I am satisfied that the proposed apartments would not
therefore result in any neighbouring properties experiencing a loss of privacy or a reduction in the
residential amenity they can reasonable expect to enjoy.
The building has been specifically designed so that it does have regard to its neighbours and the
rear portion of the building, at 14m in width, does sit comfortably within the 36m wide plot. I am
therefore of the opinion that the proposed apartment block would not form an overbearing
structure and therefore its introduction would not have an adverse impact upon the amount of light
that any neighbouring residents currently enjoy.
In the light of the above, I am satisfied that there would be no unacceptable detrimental impact on
the amenity of existing or future residents of the neighbouring dwellings and the proposed
apartments. I am therefore of the opinion that the application accords with Policy DES7.
Design
Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless
the Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the
development.
Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
Regional policy DP3 states that new development must demonstrate good design quality and
respect for its setting.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 Housing is also relevant. It states that New housing development
of whatever scale should not be viewed in isolation. Considerations of design and layout must be
informed by the wider context, having regard not just to any immediate neighbouring buildings but
the townscape and landscape of the wider locality. It also states that local planning authorities
should reject poor design.
Planning Policy Statement 1 Delivering Sustainable Development states that Local planning
authorities should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should
not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to
certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local
distinctiveness particularly where this is supported by clear plan policies or supplementary
planning documents on design.
- 22 -
The surrounding area and indeed Upper Park Road itself does contain a number of different styles
of buildings. The wider area is characterised by a mix of both residential and non-residential
buildings and I am satisfied that there is no particular style or form of building that is required in
this particular location. That said, I am firmly of the opinion that the proposed building has been
designed to the highest standards and will raise the bar on the standard of new build development
in the area. I do agree, however, that the existing building is a particularly pleasant one, enhanced
by well designed and maintained gardens and mature tree and shrub planting. Whilst it is
unfortunate that this building will be demolished, I do not consider that there is the justification, in
planning
Terms to insist upon its retention and conversion.
The building is set back 18m from the highway and given the heights outlined earlier, I consider
that the proposed building would sit happily in the street scene and I am of the opinion that the
proposed building would not have an adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the area. It
respects the existing building line and it is well designed and incorporates materials of the highest
quality thereby ensuring that the proposed building makes a positive contribution to the character
of the area.
On the above basis, I am of the opinion that the application accords with adopted policy DEV2 and
draft policy DES1, regional policy DP3 and central government advice as contained in PPS1 and
PPG3.
Car Parking and access
Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is
provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards and
that car parks are designed to a high standard, with particular regard to access arrangements,
surface materials, boundary treatments and security measures.
Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and
motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
A total of nine car parking spaces would be provided within the basement to the building. In
addition, there would be storage areas for each apartment in the basement. The application site is
not well located in terms of public transport and the parking provision is therefore at the maximum
level recommended by central government of 150%. PPG3 states that Car parking standards that
result, on average, in development with more than 1.5 off-street car parking spaces per dwelling
are unlikely to reflect the Government's emphasis on securing sustainable residential
environments. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed level of car parking is acceptable and
accords with the Council’s maximum car parking standards.
Part of the proposal involves the relocation of the exiting vehicular access to the centre of the plot
frontage. The width of this access has been reduced during discussions with highway engineers
and arboriculturalists in order to achieve a satisfactory compromise that ensures the retention of
protected trees on the street frontage and an acceptable access into the proposed development. The
- 23 -
City Council’s highway engineer is of the opinion that the proposed car parking layout and the new
access is acceptable and therefore I do not have any concerns with the proposal on highway safety
grounds.
Trees
Policy EN7 encourages the conservation of trees and woodland through supporting the retention of
trees and aims to ensure that new tree planting is designed to contribute to landscape quality.
Policy EN10 of the Revised Replacement Plan states that development that would result in the
unacceptable loss of trees will not be permitted.
The adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for trees states that “In the case of residential
buildings, a development in which a principle window (main window to a lounge, dining room or
main bedroom) is overshadowed by a tree, or where any part of a tree is sited within 3.6m of a
window will be resisted”.
A previous TPO application has dealt with the trees that are to be removed as a result of
the development. The Council’s arboricultural consultant did have a number of detailed
concerns regarding the access to the development and its effect on adjacent protected
trees. As a result of these concerns and in consultation with highway engineers the
access has been narrowed.
In the arboricultural consultants opinion the erection of protective fencing would ensure that the
construction of the proposed apartments would not have a detrimental impact upon other trees. The
separation distances between the canopies of the trees and habitable room windows in the
proposed apartments complies with the guidance in the SPG and therefore the development would
not result in an unacceptable impact upon the trees due to future people pressure either.
A condition has been attached requiring the applicant to provide details of the proposed access and
egress route for construction traffic and any mitigation measures to ensure that the branches and
roots of protected trees are not damaged during the construction period.
Overall, I am therefore satisfied that the proposal accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding trees.
Other Issues
Any problems with subsidence and drainage would normally be addressed through the
building regulations and I do not consider these issues to be particularly relevant to the
planning application process. Noise and disturbance during construction is a matter
regulated by the Director of Environmental Services, I have however attached an
informative relating to standard hours of construction. A bin store area is to be provided
- 24 -
adjacent to the site entrance and I do not consider that this issue is one that warrants
refusal or further amendment of the application.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
replacement trees would be planted to enhance the treescape
pre-application discussions highlighted the requirement for highest quality design
amended plans have addressed some of the neighbours concerns
CONCLUSION
I consider the principle of the use is acceptable and that as a result of amendments to the submitted
scheme the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring
residents. The design of the proposed building is of a high standard, retaining the vast majority of
trees on the site and providing an appropriate level of car parking. I consider that the proposed
development accords with the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP and
therefore recommend that permission be granted subject to the following conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Noise (LAeq,t) from fixed plant and machinery (including the lift motors) shall not exceed the
background level (LA90,t) at any time as measured at the boundary of the nearest noise
sensitive properties.
3. The full height glazing to the lounges that face numbers 68 and 72 Upper Park Road and the
glazed side panels to all terraces shall remain obscure glazed at all times.
4. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development is started. Such scheme
shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface
treatment and shall be carried out within 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 Local
Planning Authority.
5. No development shall commence until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority detailing the route for access and egress during the construction
phase. Such scheme shall include the likely effect on trees during the construction phase and
the mitigation measures necessary to ensure that protected trees are not harmed. Development
shall only take place in accordance with the approved scheme.
6. No development shall be started until all the trees within (or overhanging) the site which are
- 25 -
the subject of a Tree Preservation Order, with the exception of those trees clearly shown to be
felled on the submitted plan, have been surrounded by substantial fences in accordance with
the Sarah Ryecroft Associates Plan numbered 537.3B. Such fences shall be erected in
accordance with the specification indicated on that plan and shall remain until all development
is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or
topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.
7. Prior to the commencement of development details of the bin store hereby approved shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The bin store shall be
constructed in accordance with those details and brought into use prior to the occupation of any
dwelling.
8. The existing access shall be made up in accordance with details to be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to any dwelling being brought into
use.
9. No development shall be commenced unless and until full details of storm water attenuation
have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and none of the
development shall be brought into use until such details as approved are implemented in full.
Such works shall thereafter be retained.
Reasons:
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
3. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
6. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
7. Standard Reason R009 Safeguard Existing Trees
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
9. 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
- 26 -
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. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Pollution Control Section of the Environment
Directorate (Tel: (0161) 737 0551
3. Construction works shall not be permitted outside the following hours:
Monday to Friday
08:00 to 18:00
Saturdays
08:00 to 13:00
Construction works shall not be permitted on Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
APPLICATION No:
05/51652/ART10
APPLICANT:
Cerestar Ltd
LOCATION:
Cerestar Guinness Road Trafford Park Manchester (Article 10)
PROPOSAL:
Article 10 Consultation received from Trafford MBC in respect
of alterations and expansion of existing plant comprising erection
of combined heat and power plant, wheat plant and building,
bulk outloading building and pellet store, carbon furnace
building and control facility. Extension to existing cooling towers.
WARD:
OBSERVATIONS:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS
Since writing this report further work has been undertaken on noise impacts following the
submission of information from the applicant. The information below should therefore be referred
pollution
”
- 27 -
Impact on noise
“
to as opposed to that previously given in the report under the heading of
The existing plant at Cerestar has been identified as being a potential source of noise disturbance to
residents within the Salford Boundary. Acoustic reports have been submitted indicating parts of
the existing plant which have been assessed as acoustically problematic. As part of the site
redevelopment these key items of plant will be removed. The site redevelopment will introduce
newer plant on site, however, it has been indicated that most of this plant will be housed internally
with acoustic mitigation measures being a key factor in the enclosing structures and the
redevelopment process as a whole.
A basic survey has been carried out making use of manufacturers data to determine calculated
noise levels at key points along the boundary with Salford. These include adjacent residential
areas, industrial areas and roadways. In all cases it has been indicated that a reduction in the
existing noise levels is expected, many noise levels being signficantly reduced. These noise levels
have only been considered as ‘broadband’ levels however, no account for any tonal properties has
been made for the proposed plant.
The calculated noise levels appear to be acceptable and as a result I feel secure that the noise
climate will be improved from the present situation provided these levels are met. It is
recommended that the proposed calculated noise levels should be required to be met via a
condition. As such, a condition requiring this is requested and has been agreed with Trafford MBC
to ensure that the levels experienced by Salford residents and workers are not increased but
lowered in line with the calculations submitted by the applicant.
As indicated, Tonal Noise should also be considered in the final commissioning of the plant. As
complaints have been received previously, it is felt that the Council must secure a situation where
the redevelopment addresses these matters and implements measures to prevent a recurrence with
the replacement plant. It is recommended that a tonal noise assessment should also be carried out
as plant is installed and/or at the final completion of the redevelopment to ensure that the existing
situation of tonal noise intrusion reported by residents should not recur.
Discussions have taken place with Trafford it has been resolved that subject to the imposition of
the following condition I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have an adverse
impact upon Salfords residents in terms of noise pollution. This condition is as required by
Trafford’s Environmental Health Office.
otherwise confirmed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
“
“
The noise reduction measures outlined in the Hepworth Acoustic Noise Impact Assessment
Report dated December 2005 and Document Reference B2.9 dated March 2005 must be carried
out/installed before the proposed operation is brought into use and thereafter maintained unless
To target the specific issues which Salford Environmental Health Office have additionally
indicated, the following conditions are also recommended:
- 28 -
Prior to the proposed operation is brought into use, an acoustic assessment shall be carried out
and submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall undertake a
tonal analysis of noise emitted from the new plant. The assessment shall identify any key areas of
concern and shall identify necessary mitigation measures required to attenuate the tonal noise so
that a reduction in amenity is not caused at nearby residential and industrial premises. Once
agreed, all mitigation measures shall be implemented in full and maintained thereafter unless
otherwise confirmed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
A verification report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to indicate compliance
with all requirements of the noise conditions as agreed with the LPA. The report shall indicate
specific mitigation measures installed as a result of the Tonal Analysis report. A comparison check
with the calculated noise levels indicated in Table 3 of the Hepworth Acoustics reference 3762.1v2
dated December 2005 shall also be provided.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE PROPOSAL
Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council have received an application that relates to the Cerestar
site in Trafford Park on the other side of the Manchester Ship Canal. The Cerestar site is located to
the South of Weaste Quarry on Centenary Way. As the Cerestar site lies within close proximity of
the City of Salford, Trafford Borough Council have consulted us in order to see whether we have
any comments on any aspect of the proposal.
The application proposes the rationalisation of the existing industrial plant to convert from a maize
production to a wheat production, and the expansion of the plant to include an alcohol production
unit for use as a biofuel or consumption.
The application includes the following elements, which are described below.
A wheat plant building including a flourmill, wet separation building and dryer building which
would be established within a new building. The proposed building would measure 32m at its
highest point dropping to 14m at its lowest and it would have 5 floors. The building measures 70m
in width and 53m in length and will be constructed in a mix of Goosewing grey plastisol coated
metal cladding with red class A engineering brickwork at the base. Steel shutter doors on the
south, west and east elevations provide access to the building whilst external metal staircases
provide access to each floor for maintenance staff.
An extension would be added to the east of the existing bulk store. The existing building measures
28m in width, 30.4m in length and the proposed extension would be 15.5m in height and links to
the roof of the existing building. Materials will match those of the existing building.
A pellet store building which measures 56.6m in width, 24.5m in length and 11.6m in height will
also be introduced onto the site. The proposed building will link to the north elevation of the
existing and extended bulk store and will be clad in plasticol coated sheeting in goosewing grey.
Roller shutter doors will provide vehicular access to the west and east elevations.
- 29 -
An ethanol plant comprising a mix of plant, machinery and buildings including distillation,
evaporation, fermentation equipment, cooling towers, storage and control buildings is also
proposed. New roads constructed within the site will provide vehicular access around the ethanol
plant. The distillation plant will be the tallest part, comprising 8 separate metal tubes, each at
different height, the tallest measuring 43m. Each tube has an external pedestrian walkway/stairs
for maintenance.
An extension to the eastern elevation of the existing cooling towers will also be erected. The
proposed extension measures 11.8m in width. The proposed length (15.2m) and height (10.8m)
match the existing cooling tower measurements. The towers will be clad in goosewing grey
plastisol metal sheeting with greenheart timber louvres base to match the existing cooling towers.
In total, the new cooling towers will measures 35.6m in width.
A new combined heat and power plant is proposed to the north of the existing office building. This
comprises a mix of plant and machinery partially enclosed in a large industrial shed measuring
50m in length, 24.5m in width and 10.2m in height on steel supports. At its northern end, two
separate chimneys are proposed each measuring 49m in height and 1.4m in width. The roof of the
proposed industrial building will be clad in goosewing grey plastisol coated metal sheeting with
green trim whilst a palisade fence runs around the perimeter of the building.
A large industrial building measuring 13.8m in width, 213.2m in length and 25.5m in height is
proposed to accommodate a Carbon furnace. The new building will be clad in Goosewing grey
plastisol coated metal cladding with green trim.
A Control facility is also proposed. The facility would be accommodated within a small single
storey building that would be located at the far north west end of the site adjacent to the Nash Road
entrance. The building would measure 6.5m in width, 6.5m in length and 3.4m in height. The
walls would be constructed in red brick, and the roof in asphalt reinforced concrete.
Several new areas of hardstanding, roads and other associated infrastructure are also proposed as
part of the development. Raw material (wheat) will be transported to the site by HGV, and the
vehicular access on Nash Road will re-open to accommodate additional traffic associated with
these changes.
POLICY BACKGROUND
National Policy – PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control
This document states that when determing planning applications Local Planning Authorities
should assess whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land taking into
consideration the impacts that the proposed use would have on neighbouring land users as a result
of noise and air pollution that it would generate. In assessing the impact that a proposed
development would have regard also needs to be had to the effects of existing sources of pollution
in and around the site and the cumulative effects when the proposed development is added.
- 30 -
Regional Policy – EQ2 Air Quality
This policy states that Local Authorities should be working together to tackle poor air quality and
reduce emissions in order to contribute towards the improvement of air quaility in the North West.
PLANNING APPRAISAL – THE IMPACT ON SALFORD
The key issues to consider in relation to the impact of the proposal on Salford are visual amenity
and the impact the proposed development would have on air quality and noise levels in the vicinity
of the site.
Visual Impact –
When viewed from Eccles Town Centre, the West One Retail Park, Weaste Quarry the Cerestar
site is highly visible with a mixture of industrial type sheds, plant buildings and their associated
cooling towers and stacks being clearly visible within the landscape and on the skyline. The
proposal would add to the general mix of buildings on site, however, as it can be seen from the two
visuals provided which show the site when viewed from Weaste Quarry and the other from the
residential estate to the north of Akros Chemicals (to be shown at Panel) the proposed
development would not result in the introduction of any buildings or structures that would be
visually dominant or alter the character of the area. The proposed buildings and plant aparatus
would blend well with those already present on site. Consequently, the proposal would not have an
adverse impact upon the visual amenity of the area and therefore residents/land users in the
vicinity of the site would not experience a reduction in the amenity they currently enjoy. I do not
therefore have any objections to the proposal on visual amenity grounds.
Impact on Air Quality The Director of Environmental Services has the following overall comments to make. His officers
have been heavily involved in the amendment of this proposal including liason with Trafford’s
environmental health officers and the applicant. Further detailled information maybe presented at
Panel.
Introduction
This report is based on information received from Cerestar between 15 December 2005 and 10
January 2006. A precautionary approach has been adopted.
Air Quality Standards
- 31 -
Health based Air Quality Standards and Objectives are set in the Air Quality Regulations 2000 and
(Amendment) Regulations 2000. Studies by Salford City Council confirmed that nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) and particulates less than 10 microns (PM10) are exceeded and an air quality management
area (AQMA) for the annual nitrogen dioxide has been declared.
While the Environment Agency is responsible for regulating the process, this planning application
is to assess the impacts of the development and how the emissions will affect the Council’s
statutory duty to meet the Air Quality Objectives and protect human health.
The development will result in an increase of the floor space by 11000m2 for manufacturing and
alcohol production, 2 additional combined power and heat power (CHP) plants (making a total of
4), and will at least double the emissions of oxides of nitrogen from 42 tonnes per annum to 95
tonnes. Cerestar have indicated that the plant will use the most economic fuel option either gas or
diesel, but will limit the operation of diesel to no more than 3 plants at a time. Cerestar have
recently started to use more diesels due to the high price of gas. Diesel emits more particulates and
oxides of nitrogen than gas.
The pollutants giving concern from the combined heat and power plants (CHP) are nitrogen
dioxide (from oxides of nitrogen), particulates, and sulphur dioxide. The report shows that other
pollutants will meet the air quality objectives.
Nitrogen Dioxide
Modelling was used to assess the likely impact of the emissions on locations within the Eccles
area. It shows that the concentration for the annual average nitrogen dioxide will increase at West
One Retail Park by 1.8 µg/m3 on gas and 5.7 µg/m3 using diesel on three plants for 12 months. A
map (to be displayed at panel) shows the effect of emissions on the Eccles area.
This represents 4 % and 14% of the current air quality objective for annual mean nitrogen dioxide.
There will also be specific points at the roadside, which will move from being just below the air
quality standard to above the standard. In the worst case it would suggest that the air quality
objective might be exceeded at background locations if the facility is operated on diesel for 12
months, as levels will increase from 35 to 40 µg/m2. A map of effect of firing on diesel was not
provided and therefore the extent of the pollution could not be assessed.
Impact of the Development on attaining Nitrogen Dioxide Air Quality Objectives.
The concentration levels at Eccles have been falling about 1 µg/m3 per year and therefore it is
estimated that this development will result in setting the air quality gains back by 2 years using gas
and by up to six years for diesel. .
This is a significant setback and therefore the amount of time using diesel will need to be
conditioned.
Particulates less than 10 microns (PM10).
- 32 -
The proposed development was modelled using gas only and shows a reduction of 7 µg/m3.
However action by the Environment Agency would have secured a reduction in emissions to meet
their permit conditions in any case.
Transport Emissions
There will be additional vehicle traffic of 80 heavy goods vehicles (HGV’s) over a 16-hour period
equivalent to 5 vehicles per hour. These will enter and leave the site using the A576 New Century
Bridge – Gilda Brook Road - West One to the M602. Traffic emissions will therefore affect
residential housing along the route.
The emissions from transport are less significant compared to emissions from the CHP and the
large traffic volumes on the road. Nevertheless there will be a cumulative effect at roadside
locations at these locations, which have not been fully identified by Cerestar.
Mitigation
Planning Policy Statement 23 acknowledges that it is appropriate in some circumstances for the
developer to fund mitigation measures elsewhere inside the AQMA to offset any increase in local
pollutant emissions as a consequence of the proposed development. These measures can be
secured through Section 106 Agreements.
The development will delay compliance with the air quality objectives. While Cerestar have
provided brief details on reducing their own transport emissions it has not considered how to offset
the increase in emissions from the site’s power plants. Measures to improve the local transport
infrastructure and travel plans across Eccles and Trafford Park will be effective at reducing
roadside pollution where the levels are highest. Both councils have Travel Co-ordinators and
Local Transport Plan Officers who can advise and guide them on how the to develop meaningful
mitigation measures for Salford and Trafford.
Discussion and Recommendations.
The increase in emissions predicted will require Salford to continue to resource and fund the air
quality monitoring station at Eccles town Centre. Additional work will also be incurred in the
additional years to achieve the air quality objectives and the additional work required for the local
review and assessment of air quality.
The modelling undertaken by Cerestar indicates a significant increase of emissions during the
diesel firing and will have an unacceptable impact on the local environment.
The facility must have an option to switch to diesel in the event that the gas supply is interrupted,
which is increasingly likely in the short term. Furthermore the plant will need to be fired on diesel
for testing and during servicing.
Therefore it is not practicable to give planning permission for gas usage only and a certain
proportion of time must be permitted for diesel usage. While there is insufficient data in the report
- 33 -
to accurately set a usage level for diesel, to enable the development to proceed it is recommended
that:
A) The total number of months that one or any permutation of the four gas turbine and waste heat
boilers can be operated on diesel in a running 12 month period is six months. (Examples to be
provided)
This condition may be reassessed if modelling is undertaken by Cerestar, demonstrating that the
impact on the local area is provided.
With regard to mitigation the following is recommended:
B) Cerestar to develop a mitigation package for the local area (including Eccles) which will also
include a Green travel plan for employees and transport companies moving raw materials and
finished product.
Other conditions recommended are:
C) Emission monitoring results from the four plant are submitted in writing to SCC.
D) Annual emission and associated calculations detailing fuel usage and split is submitted
annually in writing to SCC.
E) Cerestar to advise Salford City Council, in writing, when any plant is switched to or from diesel.
F) Commissioning report to identify emission characteristics during start-up / shutdown and
normal operating during diesel and gas phases on all four main gas turbines.
Recommendations C and D will be used to fulfil SCC duties under The Environment Act 1995 and
local air quality management to maintain the Greater Manchester Emission Inventory for the
purposes of reviewing and assessing local air quality. Recommendation E is monitor effects on the
local air quality. Recommendation F to determine if the CHP confirms to the advise given by the
manufactures and provide more accurate information for monitoring.
Impact on noise pollution –
Discussions have taken place with Trafford it has been resolved that subject to the imposition of
the following condition I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have an adverse
impact upon Salfords residents in terms of noise pollution.
“
Prior to the commencement of the development, a noise assessment for the proposed
development and details of any noise mitigation measures required shall be submitted to and
approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall address the noise
impacts of the proposed changes to plant and equipment on site and shall assess the impact on
neighbouring commercial and industrial uses both in Trafford Park and Eccles. The impact on
residential uses in the Eccles area shall also be considered including further assessment of
- 34 -
Planning Authority.
”
possible tonal noise from the development. All approved noise mitigation measures shall be
installed before the proposed development is brought into use and thereafter maintained in
accordance with the approved scheme unless otherwise confirmed in writing with the Local
CONCLUSION
It is reccommended that subject to the conditions identified above that the impact on Salford can
be limited. On this basis I would recommend that Trafford MBC be advised that no objection be
lodged providing the conditions are imposed should they be minded to grant planning permission.
RECCOMMENDATION
That no objection be lodged subject to Trafford MBC imposing the conditions/agreements
contained in this report that are required to satisfactorarily address concerns regarding air quality
and noise.
- 35 -