PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No:
6th April 2006
05/49877/OUT
APPLICANT:
Acroy Limited C/o Dandara Limited
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By Chapel Street/Barlow's
Street/Dearmans Place/River Irwell Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the erection of six buildings of 13, 19, 25
and 40 storeys comprising 990 apartments and 5088sq.m of
commercial, retail and leisure uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1
or D2) plus new primary substation and associated car parking
(745 spaces) and landscaping.
WARD:
Ordsall
Croft/Clowes
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION
This development represents one of the largest applications to be considered by the Panel. Your
officers first started discussions about the development of this site almost three years ago. Those
discussions have involved many officers as well as Peter Hunter, the City Council’s architectural
advisor, the Central Salford URC and the Chapel Street Regeneration Team. The design
principles of the scheme have been reassessed on more than one occasion and the scheme has
been amended several times.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This outline application relates to a large site bounded by Chapel Street to the north, the Lowry
Hotel and River Irwell to the south, Trinity Bridge House, which houses the Inland Revenue, to
the west and the Edge apartment development and Barlow’s Croft to the east. The site covers an
area of 1.8 hectares and has a frontage to Chapel Street of some 95m. The site currently
includes a number of buildings and uses that include the D C Thomson premises and other
warehouse/industrial buildings on the Chapel Street frontage, the existing surface car park for the
Lowry Hotel, the Lowry service yard and vacant land situated between the hotel and the Edge
development. The Flat Iron Conservation Area borders the site in the northeast corner on the
Chapel Street frontage.
The scale of buildings around the site varies from two and three storey properties around
Blackfriars Street and Chapel Street to larger scale eight to twelve storey buildings along
Dearman’s Place and around the river Irwell. The Edge residential development recently
completed to the east of the site rises to twenty-one storeys.
1
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
There is no dominant style of building in the vicinity of the site with existing buildings ranging
from Victorian properties forming the historical grain to Chapel Street and the wider
conservation area, to modern structures such as Trinity Bridge House, the Lowry Hotel and the
Edge apartment development.
There is no dominant building rhythm around the site. However, the site’s context is
characterised by the historical tight street pattern to the northeast, with all other adjacent sites
being made up of large-scale building plots.
Existing roads within the site include Dearman’s Place to the west that provides access to the
Lowry Hotel and the Bridge apartment building and which leads through to the Calatrava
footbridge, an unnamed private service road situated to the east of the D C Thomson building
that leads to the hotel service yard, Clowes Street which provides the only vehicular access to the
Edge apartments and Barlow’s Croft, a narrow cul-de-sac that only serves the warehouse
building that fronts it.
It is proposed to demolish all buildings on the site and erect a total of six blocks on the site
arranged in three fingers of buildings running at 90 degrees to both the river and Chapel Street.
The schedule of buildings is as follows:
Block A - a 40-storey tower between the Lowry hotel and the Edge apartments. The tower
would be set back from the river by 23m, would measure 35m by 16.5m and has a two storey
base that contains a spa and leisure facility for the Lowry hotel.
Block B - a 19-storey block that would run up from block A to Chapel Street. This block would
measure 80m by 14.5m and would sit on a larger four storey base that fronts the main internal
access road and a two storey base (Block C) that fronts Chapel Street. The 19 storey element of
the building would be set back 15m from the carriageway.
Block C – is the two storey commercial element of the Block B building. It would provide new
premises for DC Thompson fronting Chapel Street.
Block D - a new single storey primary electricity sub-station and separate boilerhouse and substations located on the infill site between Clowes Street and Barlows Croft between the Edge
development and buildings on Chapel Street.
Block E1 – a 13-storey block parallel to block B and in front of the Lowry Hotel. It would
measure 31m by 12m and would be 28m from the Lowry Hotel.
Block E2 – a 13-storey block identical to block E1. It would be set back from Chapel Street
carriageway by 11m and separated by a 23m gap from block E1.
2
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Block F – a 13-storey block adjacent to Trinity Bridge House. It would be set 28m from the
Lowry Hotel and would measure 40.5m by 17m.
Block G – a 25-storey block of similar dimensions to block F set back 9m from the Chapel Street
carriageway. There would be a 10m gap between blocks F and G.
Blocks E1, E2, F and G would all sit on a two storey podium that houses the commercial units
that front Chapel Street, Dearmans Place, the Lowry Hotel and the new main internal access
road.
There would also be a link at first floor level from the existing Lowry hotel into the proposed spa
and leisure facility at the base of the 40-storey tower.
The development would provide a total of 990 apartments. There would be a mix of one, two
and three bedroomed dwellings as well as a number of serviced apartments. The mix of
apartment types is as follows:84 serviced apartments
78 studios
469 one-bed apartments
348 two-bed apartments
6 three-bed apartments
5 penthouses
D C Thomson would be relocated within the development in new premises comprising 5,000sq.ft
(465sq.m) on the Chapel Street frontage in the 19 storey building. In addition there would be
35,000sq.ft (3251.5sq.m) of commercial floorspace (A1, A2, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2) at ground
and first floor level throughout the development.
Parking would be provided in two basement levels across the whole site as well as within the
podiums of all the blocks set back from the river. The visual impact of the car parking is reduced
by the commercial uses at ground and first floors. The podiums create an upper level of private
landscaped space for the use of residents. There would be a total of 745 car parking spaces
across the site.
It is proposed that the development is accessed via two existing roads. The primary site access to
the development is proposed via a new road located between Dearman’s Place and Clowes Street
that is currently used as a private service road.
This would provide vehicular access to
commercial, retail and leisure units, all the residential blocks as well as to the Lowry Hotel.
Clowes Street would provide secondary vehicular access to a small number of car parking spaces
serving the commercial units in Block B. Clowes Street also provides the main vehicular access
to the Edge development and would continue to serve as a main pedestrian route from Chapel
Street to the riverside walkway. As part of the development a new signalised pedestrian crossing
on Chapel Street adjacent to the entrance into the Deva Centre would be provided. Surface level
3
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
car parking would be provided in front of the new electicity sub-stations. Dearman’s Place is to
be closed off to general traffic but service vehicles, coaches and refuse vehicles would be
permitted during certain time periods.
The City Council’s own Chapel Street Environmental Improvement Scheme proposes that
Chapel Street would be reduced in width and an improved public realm provided.
At ground level all streets (Chapel Street, Dearman’s Place, the new primary internal access
road, Clowes Street and the public space created in front of the Lowry Hotel and between blocks
A and B) would be animated with both commercial and retail units. Tree planting is proposed to
enhance informal spill out from the retail units.
Pedestrian access within and around the site is to be enhanced as part of the development. The
riverside walkway would be enhanced and footways on Dearman’s Place widened and existing
traffic removed from this road thereby improving accessibility from the regional centre through
the site and beyond to the Deva Centre. Pavements would also be improved on Clowes Street
and on the new main access into the site that is currently a private service road.
The site is well served by public transport with Chapel Street having 19 bus services running on
it. Central Salford railway station is approximately 200m away and Manchester Victoria railway
station is approximately 500m away. In addition the site is within the regional centre.
The application has been amended significantly since it was first submitted. These amendments
have been driven by officer and consultee concerns. These amendments have resulted in blocks
being divided and space and light within the centre of the site being increased.
The original submitted scheme was for 983 apartments and included five larger blocks, the
highest of which was 36 storeys. The amendments have resulted from concerns primarily
expressed by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) about the
massing of the blocks, the distances between blocks and the level of amenity for future occupiers
of the development.
The application is accompanied by a number of documents:Daylight and Sunlight Assessment
Environmental Wind Study
Transport Impact Assessment
Environmental Noise Study
Secure By Design
Flood Risk Assessment
Archaeological Desk Top Study
It is proposed that the overall development would be phased. The first phase being blocks A and
B closest to Blackfriars Street including the relocation of D C Thompson, the provision of the
4
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
replacement car parking for the Lowry Hotel and access to the Edge apartments. The second
phase would be the four remaining blocks.
SITE HISTORY
In April 1999 planning permission was granted in outline for the development of the larger
Chapel Wharf site for mixed of uses comprising offices, hotels, residential, retail, restaurants and
public houses (99/39108/OUT). Buildings completed within that original outline site include the
Lowry hotel and the Bridge apartment building.
CONSULTATIONS
Manchester City Council – Manchester and Salford City Councils are currently working in
partnership to develop a strategy for the Irwell Corridor that is intended to guide a co-ordinated
approach to future land use and development within the Corridor area. It is believed that the
determination of these applications for such a significant level of development on such key sites
within the Corridor would be premature in advance of this strategy being agreed.
In addition, while the information submitted with both applications gives full consideration to the
setting of the sites within the City of Salford it fails to give consideration to the historic
environment that lies directly opposite the application sites within the City of Manchester. The
Parsonage Gardens Conservation Area extends along the riverside from the north-east as far as
(and encompassing) the Grade II ‘listed’ Century Buildings. The applications should explicitly
demonstrate that full regard has been given to this matter in accordance with the guidance
contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15.
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends conditions regarding
contaminated land and noise.
CABE – Had a number of fundamental concerns with regard to the submitted application. They
felt that there was too much accommodation and their concerns related mainly to the site
planning and the massing of the slab blocks.
They have been involved in discussions about amendments to the scheme but their latest
response to the amended scheme still objects on the grounds of overdevelopment and they seek a
fundamental rethink of the scheme. It is important to note that they have not made any criticism
of the height or location of the tower and have stated that they are pleased to see that the
generally the accommodation proposed is wider than it is deep and that the ends of the blocks are
animated with windows and do not have the more usual blank flank wall.
United Utilities – No objections.
5
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – did have reservations regarding the original
scheme but now welcomes the significant revisions to the proposals that take fully into account
earlier concerns expressed by CABE. This is a major and imposing project that will enhance the
Regional Centre as a whole and accords completely with the Central Salford Draft Vision and
Regeneration Framework.
Environment Agency – Now has no objection in principle to the proposed development but
requests that conditions be attached regarding contamination.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – There is an archaeological implication for this
development. The site is adjacent to the junction of Gravel Lane and Chapel Street which
formed part of medieval Salford. The applicant has already begun to address archaeological
issues through the submission of an archaeological desk top study but a condition should be
attached to secure all archaeological interests.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Unit – Consider that the scheme will generate
crime owing to the density and configuration of the apartments and freedom of movement and
permeability and strongly object to the scheme and recommend refusal. The density of this
development and the existing properties adjacent places an extreme burden upon the volume of
traffic off the site via a single access/egress route onto Chapel Street and the potential congestion
at the intersection with this junction. The opportunity for crime around this proposed
development is high.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – Appreciates that the development is
already accessible by public transport but considers that there may be capacity problems to be
addressed and therefore requests that financial contributions secured through a S106 agreement.
It is also recommended that travel plans be submitted.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified of both the submitted and the amended plans:
All apartments in The Edge, Clowes Street
All apartments in Century Buildings, St Mary’s Parsonage
All apartments in The Bridge, 40 Dearmans Place
Lowry Hotel and Trinity Bridge House, Dearmans Place
Delphian House, New Bailey Street
Caxton Hall, Hilton House and Black Lion Hotel, Chapel Street
1-5 (incl) Black Lion Court, 75-79 Chapel Street
81 to 95 and Sacred Trinity Church, Chapel Street
6
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
1 and 3 Gravel Lane
Conavon Court, Blackfriars Street
All apartments in The Gallery, 18 Blackfriars Street
14, 16 and 22 to 28 Blackfriars Street
All apartments in the Textile Apartments, 10 Blackfriars Street
10 Booth Street
All apartments in Chapel Buildings, 4 Booth Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 70 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity
on both the submitted and amended schemes. Objections have principally been received from
residents of The Edge and Century Buildings across the river in Manchester. The following
issues have been raised:The proposal conflicts with policy H1 in that it does not contribute to the mix of
dwellings in the area and leads to an oversupply of flats.
Overdevelopment
Insufficient amenity and open space is provided for future residents
The height, scale and massing of the development is inappropriate.
There is insufficient car parking.
The scheme is contrary to policy.
Impact on adjacent buildings is unacceptable.
The principal of a very tall tower on this site was not envisaged under the original
masterplan for the area
I have also received a detailed objection to the scheme on behalf of Countryside, the developers
of the Edge apartment scheme. As well as objecting to the scheme for the reasons outlined
above they have in addition prepared their own report assessing the impact of the proposed
development on sunlight and daylight on blocks B, C and D of the Edge. Their report concludes
that a wide selection of floors and blocks were tested and the results indicate that the level of
daylight and sunlight is below the recommended levels as detailed in the BRE guidelines and
that the proposals will have a detrimental effect on the level of daylight and sunlight on the Edge.
The report does also point out that the BRE guidance is not mandatory and should not be seen as
part of planning policy. But the agents acting for Countryside point out that it is nonetheless a
material factor that must be taken into account when assessing an application.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY.
DP3 - Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
7
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Site specific policies: CS5 – Central Salford
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H1
Housing Supply, H6 & H11 Open Space Provision.
DRAFT REPLACEMENT UDP POLICY
Site Specific: MX1 – Development in Mixed-Use Areas
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES3 Design of Public Space, DES5 Tall Buildings,
H1 Supply of Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development,
MX2 – Chapel Street frontage, DES2 Circulation and Movement, 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 scale, massing and design of the building is of
sufficiently high quality in this important part of the city, impact of the development on
neighbours, whether there is sufficient parking and open space provision and finally whether the
views of CABE should take precedence over views of others.
Principle of the Development
Policy H1 requires that an adequate supply of housing be 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.
Policy ST11 seeks to ensure that new development is located on the most sustainable sites within
the City and that less sustainable sites are only brought forward when necessary. The policy is
based on the sequential approaches to development that are set out in national policy guidance
and policy DP1 of Regional Planning Guidance for the North-West
Draft Policy MX1/1 states that Chapel Street East will be developed as a vibrant mixed use area
with a broad range of uses. Appropriate uses include housing, offices and retail uses. In
determining whether a proposed mix of uses is appropriate, regard will be had to a number of
factors, including the positive impact of the development on the regeneration of the wider area,
the use on adjoining sites, the prominence of the location and the existing and previous use of the
site.
Draft Policy MX2 requires development along Chapel Street to incorporate active uses at ground
floor level, including retail, food and drink and financial and professional services.
8
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The site is previously developed in a highly accessible location within the Regional Centre. The
principle of the redevelopment of the site is therefore acceptable and in accordance with national
government guidance. The application proposes a mix of uses, namely residential, commercial
and retail, including active uses at ground floor level along Chapel Street, which is in accordance
with Draft policies MX1 and MX2. The proposal itself has a mix of studio, one, two and three
bedroom apartments. I consider that in this very central location within the regional centre the
level of provision is appropriate. The high density of the scheme will ensure that the
development remains lively and fosters the need for good local facilities close at hand. The
intended retail/commercial units offer activity at ground floor level. The proposed mix of uses is
in accordance with policy H1 and I consider the proposed uses would provide an appropriate
level of commercial activity that will result in a positive redevelopment of this vacant 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.
Draft policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to,
public space, that public space must be designed to:
i) Have a clear role and purpose, responding to established or proposed local economic, social,
cultural and environmental needs;
ii) Reflect and enhance the character and identity of the area;
iii) Form an integral part of, and provide an appropriate setting for, surrounding developments;
iv) Be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit;
v) Be of an appropriate scale;
vi) Connect to established pedestrian routes and other public spaces; and
vii) Minimise, and make provision for, maintenance requirements.
Draft policy DES5 states that tall buildings will be permitted where they meet a number of
criteria. Those criteria include that the scale of the development is appropriate to its context and
location; that the location is highly accessible to public transport, walking and cycling; that the
building would relate positively to and interact well with the adjacent public realm; that the
building would be of the highest quality design; that the building would make a positive addition
to the skyline and would not detract from important views and that there would be no
unacceptable impact on the setting of a listed building or on the character or appearance of a
conservation area. The reasoned justification for the policy goes on to say that tall buildings are
more likely to be appropriate within the mixed use areas identified on policy MX1
The form of the development acknowledges the historic street pattern and grain of the area and
offers a high degree of permeability when viewed from Chapel Street. The architects for the
9
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
scheme have sought to achieve a high quality of design and have made amendments to this
design as a result of concerns expressed by CABE. The City Council’s architectural consultant,
Peter Hunter, considers that the scheme, and the further amendments to it, is of the highest
quality and I consider that his comments are worth setting down in full.
In my view the discussions held as a result of CABE’s comments and the City Council’s concerns
have had a very beneficial effect on the architecture and urban design of the proposed
development.
In particular the new urban geometry provides a more harmonious and dynamic range of
proportions, scale and heights. By reducing and dividing the central block there are greater
wall to wall dimensions and much improved visual and sunlight penetration.
The emerging design of ground and podium level streetscape is to be welcomed and as
previously discussed would benefit greatly by becoming part of an overall landscape strategy for
the whole Chapel Wharf quarter. This would enable colours, textures, lighting, signage and
planting to be co-ordinated and so create an identifiable destination within the City.
The pedestrian routes are now more defined with active frontages and will provide opportunities
for daytime and night-time character with public art perhaps forming a theme towards the
western end of Chapel Street.
The additional height proposed for the main tower will increase its prominence and create a
visual dialogue with the other tall structures being built in the area. For these reasons, the
choice of cladding material will be crucial to the architectural character and should also be
considered in daylight and night-time vistas along Chapel Street and other long views. The
‘silhouette crown’ deserves very special consideration with possibilities for aerial sculpture and
imaginative lighting.
The proposals have evolved into a more confident character and when realised will enhance the
architectural quality of the surrounding buildings and give Chapel Wharf the extra dimensions
of city life already begun by the Edge and famous Calatrava bridge.
High quality materials are proposed and I am satisfied that the development will be of a very
high standard of design. I am also particularly mindful of the comments of Peter Hunter and the
URC and I would point out that CABE have at no time has any issue with the individual design
of any building and have at no point made any criticism of the tower.
The provision of the new public spaces through the site – to Chapel Street, between the Lowry
Hotel and the proposed development and on the river frontage are also features of the scheme.
The spaces have been designed well and open up pedestrian routes from Chapel Street through
the site to the riverside walkway in keeping with the traditional street pattern of this part of
Chapel Street and the Flat Iron Conservation Area where much of the street scene within the
10
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Crescent Conservation Area where the street frontage is punctuated at regular intervals by side
streets that break up the mass of the buildings along the frontage. The new public spaces form
an integral part of the scheme and are of an appropriate scale. I consider that the development
fully accords with draft policy DES3.
The tall buildings on the site are appropriate to their context and location and respond well to the
new public spaces created by the development. The buildings are designed to a high standard
and use high quality materials. I consider that the proposed development accords with policy
DES5.
Impact on adjacent Conservation Areas
There are two nearby conservation areas: The flat iron Conservation Area and the Parsonage
Gardens conservation area (located within Manchester on the opposite side of the River Irwell).
The proposed development would be set back from the frontage of existing buildings on Chapel
Street and would enable public realm improvements to take place. It would not have a
detrimental impact on view into the Conservation Area along Chapel Street. The proposed
single storey electricity sub-station would be located along the western boundary of the
Conservation Area at the Barlow’s Croft cul-de-sac and would not be visible from any key view
points within the conservation area. The Parsonage Gardens Conservation Area is located some
59m away, across the River Irwell. Members should note that The Edge development is closer to
both conservation areas. It demonstrates that modern development can be located harmoniously
with older properties.
Effects of the development on neighbours
Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
I have received a number of objections from neighbouring residents regarding the impact of the
proposed development on their amenity, and in particular loss of light and privacy. Given the
city centre location of the site and the nature of the development, it is not appropriate to apply
the interface standards that are used to guide development elsewhere within the city. Such
concerns must be considered against the benefits of the scheme, namely the redevelopment of an
underused and largely unattractive site, the provision of a mixture of uses, including active uses
along the Chapel Street frontage, and the construction of buildings which would enhance the area
and which accord fully with other Council policies.
In terms of privacy I consider the separation distance of 59m metres across the river Irwell from
the 40-storey tower to residential properties in Century Buildings to be acceptable with regards
to privacy of its occupiers. To the Edge apartments closest to the river the proposed 40-storey
tower is set back so that there would be no direct window to window views from either
development. It is acknowledged that it is the Block C of the Edge development that is most
affected by the proposed development. It is worth pointing out that of the two apartments on
11
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
each storey in that gable end of the block, the living room window to the apartment closest to
Chapel Street faces the other Edge block. The living room of the apartment closest to the river
has a large corner window and so there are wide views that both face the other block in the Edge
and face this proposed development. It is therefore only bedroom windows in each apartment of
Block C at The Edge that directly face this site. The windows in the tower (living rooms and
bedrooms) would be approximately 18.5m from the windows in the Block C of the Edge. This
distance is commensurate with the distance between the individual blocks comprising the Edge
and I am satisfied that this distance, in this location, is acceptable. I do not therefore consider
that there will be any significant loss of privacy or an unacceptable outlook suffered by residents
surrounding the site. I do not consider that the height of the building is such that it would prove
overdominant when viewed from any neighbouring property given the distances and
circumstances described above.
The relationship between Block D of The Edge and the 19-storey Block B of the proposal in that
there would be a separation distance of 12.5m between the The blocks. The impact would be
between bedroom windows in The Edge Block and bedroom windows of the proposed scheme
and a balcony. Block D of The Edge was constructed so that the living room windows did not
face the application site but that bedroom windows would be located just 2m from the boundary
of their site. Although less than would normally be acceptable I consider that in this instance a
distance of 12.5m is acceptable.
The Daylight and Sunlight Assessment submitted by the applicant indicates that overshadowing
impact will be most significant on Block C of ‘The Edge’ and that the greatest impact on diffuse
daylight and direct sunlight will be to the windows of ‘The Edge’ apartment 117, the lowest
habitable room identified in Block C. The daylight levels in the three rooms of apartment 117,
however, are higher than minimum requirements set by British Standard 8206. It is therefore
concluded that the daylight levels in all other apartments will also be acceptable.
The sunlight and daylight report submitted by Countryside worked to BRE guidelines not to the
British Standard. Both have arrived at different results. I am of the opinion that if, according to
the British Standard, no apartments in The Edge fall below the minimum standards then it would
be wrong to impose a new higher standard that has previously been applied to development
within the City.
It is important to note that the impact on sunlight and daylight on the apartment most affected by
the proposed scheme is the same for the proposed 40-storey block as it would be for a notional
20-storey tower in the same position.
The environmental wind study demonstrates that the conditions within the site are considered
acceptable although some additional measures would be required during the intermediate stage
between building phases. All building entrances were observed to have acceptable sitting or
standing conditions. Conditions at the entrance to the Edge at the southwest corner of the site
remain windy but are improved as a result of the development. Conditions in the surrounding
12
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
streets are generally similar to or better than existing site conditions. Particularly conditions
around the Edge and Trinity Bridge House were slightly improved compared to existing site
conditions.
In conclusion, whilst I accept that the amenity of some of the neighbouring residents may be
affected, I consider that the benefits of the scheme, namely the provision of high quality
buildings which would make a positive contribution to the surrounding area, and the removal
from the site of a number of unattractive and under-utilised sites and buildings outweigh
concerns relating to loss of privacy, loss of light and overlooking. I therefore have no objections
to the application in respect of residential amenity.
Highways, Parking and Public Transport
Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks maximum parking standards for all
developments. Within the emerging planning framework and in line with central government
advice there is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.
The traffic impact assessment submitted by the applicant shows that the proposed development
would not have a material impact on the local highway network. Capacity assessments at the
proposed site access junction with Chapel Street show that this junction would operate within
capacity with minimal delays.
I have received objections to the level of parking proposed that there is insufficient parking
provided for the proposed development. The parking levels are in accordance with policy in this
highly accessible location and I consider the parking levels proposed to be acceptable and would
consider a greater level of provision to be contrary to both good practice, government advice and
planning policy. In terms of highway safety I have no objections to the submitted scheme.
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.
The applicant has stated the following with regard to sustainable construction:the development is on a brownfield site
buildings will be designed for modular construction
all units are fully accessible to all
durable materials are proposed
low energy lighting will be used throughout
occupants will be provided with information regarding reducing energy requirements
the level of parking is 60% for the residential units
13
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
buildings will be designed to allow for prefabricated cladding construction to minimise
construction waste
prefabricated bathroom pods will be used throughout
all units will have acoustic party walls to minimise sound transmission
natural surveillance is promoted throughout
there will be 24 hour concierge and manned site management office and have been
designed for modular construction.
Open Space Provision
The development provides a significant level of amenity space to the south of the site. 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 2350 bed spaces, which equates to a commuted sum value of £562,308. In
addition, in accordance with the Chapel Street SPG, a contribution of £1000 per apartment would
be generated by the development for environmental improvements. It is envisaged that this sum
would be spent on an extension of the free city centre shuttlebus service that operates in
Manchester, environmental improvements to the surrounding area including public art on the
river frontage, improvements to Chapel Street and improvements to the public transport
infrastructure.
Crime
I consider that the concerns of the architectural liaison unit cannot be successfully addressed
while at the same time meeting the desire of both CABE and the City Council for good
pedestrian links through the scheme from Chapel Street to the riverside walkway. It is inevitable
that a development of this size will generate opportunities for crime but this must be balanced
against the benefits that such a development will bring and I am satisfied that the majority of the
justifiable concerns of the police architectural liaison unit can be met through a condition
requiring a scheme to be submitted that is capable of meeting their secure by design standards.
Other Objections Raised by Neighbours
i) That there is an oversupply of flats in the area and that the scheme amounts to
overdevelopment.
This is a central location where higher dwelling densities should be encouraged and
where it is right to provide apartments. All those objecting to the application live in
apartment schemes themselves. The scheme does supply a greater mix of dwellings than
at the Edge and in terms of the number of dwellings per site area this development would
be less dense than the Edge development.
ii) That insufficient amenity and open space is provided for residents
Again this is a central location where many developments, such as Century Buildings and
the residential schemes on Blackfriars Street have no outdoor amenity space whatsoever.
14
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The development does provide a significant level of amenity space as well as significant
public realm.
iii) That the development is contrary to policy
Planning policy should properly be examined as a whole and I am satisfied that on
balance the development is supported by national, regional and local planning policy.
iv) That the principal of a very tall tower on this site was not envisaged under the original
masterplan for the area.
It is many years since any original masterplan for this area was first envisaged. The
original outline planning approval for a mixed use development on the Chapel Wharf site
did not prescribe any particular mix of height of development.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the policies H6, H11, H8, SPG7, and the Chapel Street SPG the applicant has
agreed to make a financial contribution towards children’s play space, open space or local
environmental improvements. A total of £1,552,308 would be contributed in this regard. The
applicant has also confirmed the use of some sustainable building techniques.
CONCLUSION
As stated at the outset, this application has been subject to the highest level of scrutiny and
appraisal and is supported by the URC and by the City Council’s architectural consultant Peter
Hunter. I am disappointed that CABE remain of the view that the scheme is fundamentally
flawed as the configuration and orientation of the blocks has been carefully assessed and follows
the old Salford street patterns in this part of the City. Similarly the separation distances are
consistent with practice in Salford and consistent with the separation distances achieved at the
Edge and elsewhere in this part of the City.
I am satisfied that the amended design is acceptable and that the application would not have any
significant detrimental effect upon the amenity of neighbouring residents or on the surrounding
area in general. I am also satisfied that the level of on site parking is acceptable. I am satisfied
that the application complies with policies of the development plan as a whole. This is a major
and imposing project that will enhance the Regional centre as a whole and accords completely
with the Central Salford Draft Vision and Regeneration Framework.
It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions and that
authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services to enter into a
legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act and Section 278 of the
Highways Act.
RECOMMENDATION:
15
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Application for approval of reserved matters must be made not later than the expiration of
three years beginning with the date of this permission and the development must be begun
not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:(a) the expiration of five years from the date of this permission; or
(b) the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or, in the case
of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- plans and elevations showing the external appearance of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted,
any existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk
positions, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- plans and elevations showing the external appearance of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted,
any existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk
positions, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to the
commencement of the development the developer shall submit a site investigation report for
the approval of the LPA. 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.
16
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The sampling and analytical strategy shall be approved by the LPA 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 first occupation of the any of
the units.
Prior to discharge, a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning
Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall validate that all works undertaken
on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by the LPA.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development, a noise assessment detailing the acoustic
protection measures to be incorporated into the final design shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such assessment shall also detail
mitigation measures to demonstrate how the noise levels agreed within the report will be
achieved when the ventilation rates are increase (windows open - as for when Summer
Cooling or Rapid Ventilation is required). Any additional ventilation requirements to enable
compliance with the report shall be identified within the assessment. The approved acoustic
protection and additional ventilation measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation
of any of the residential unit and retained thereafter.
5. No development/demolition shall take place within the proposal area until the applicant has
secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a
written scheme of investigation that has been submitted by the applicant and approved in
writing by the local planning authority.
6. No part of the development shall be occupied unless and until the applicant enters into an
Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act to secure the provision of highway
improvements at the vehicular entrances/exits to and from the site from Chapel Street and
such improvements have been implemented in full.
7. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority a maximum of 990
residential units shall be accommodated within the development.
8. Prior to the commencement of the development a travel plan relating to the B1(a)
commercial units shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such travel plan shall include objectives and targets, and, where appropriate,
measures to promote and facilitate public transport use, measures to reduce car use and its
management, measures to promote and facilitate cycling and walking, promotion of
practices/facilities to reduce the need to travel, monitoring and review mechanisms, travel
plan coordination, and provision of travel information and marketing. The initiatives
contained within the approved plan shall be implemented and shall be in place prior to the
first occupation of any of the B1(a) units, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority
17
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
9. No development shall be commenced unless and until a secure by design scheme has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall be
capable of being accredited by Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit under
the secure by design scheme.
10. No development/demolition shall take place within the proposal area until the applicant has
secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a
written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
11. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing all the following
matters including; sustainable construction techniques; natural ventilation techniques;
sustainable urban drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar heat gain and use of
renewable energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability matters have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the
occupation of any dwelling the approved scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be
retained and maintained.
(Reasons)
1. Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990.
2. The application is for outline permission only and these matters were reserved by the
applicant for subsequent approval.
3. To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with
policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
4. To safeguard the amenity of the future occupants of the development in accordance with
policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. To secure archaelogogy interests on the site in accordance with policy EN14 of the City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan.
6. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
7. In order to ensure that a mixture of uses are provided within the site, in accordance with
Policy MX1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plan.
8. In accordance with Policy A1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary
Development Plan.
18
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
9. To ensure the design of the scheme discourages crime in accordance with Policy DEV4 of
the City of Salford Adopted UDP and Policy DES11 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement Plan
10. To make a record of remains of archaeological interest in accordance with policy EN14 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
11. In order to address recycling and sustainability issues 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 is advised that the basement areas will be vulnerable to flooding and that a
pumping system is therefore required.
2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
3. Under the terms of the water Resources Act 1991 and the Land drainage Byelaws, the prior
written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures
in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of the main river Irwell.
4. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980.
5. 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.
6. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be
satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions
precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be
taken by the Council.
APPLICATION No:
05/50479/FUL
19
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
APPLICANT:
Acroy Ltd
LOCATION:
Land At Chapel Wharf Bounded By Chapel Street, Clowes
Street And River Irwell Salford 3
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of two blocks of 40
and 19 storeys compising 552 apartments, 988sq.m offices (A2
and B1), 290sq.m retail (A1, A4, A5) and 1963sq.m leisure (D2)
with 228 car parking spaces and associated landscaping.
WARD:
Ordsall
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application is a part of a larger site bounded by Chapel Street to the north, the Lowry Hotel
and River Irwell to the south, Trinity Bridge House which houses the Inland Revenue, to the
west and the Edge apartment development and Barlow’s Croft to the east for which outline
planning consent is also sought on this agenda (05/49877/OUT). This application relates to that
part of the site closest to buildings on Blackfriars Street and the Edge apartment development
and runs from Chapel Street through to the river frontage. The application is for the first phase
of that development but is submitted as a full application. The site currently includes open space
between the Edge and the Lowry Hotel service yard and warehouses either side of Clowes Street.
To the east of the site are the existing Lowry Hotel surface car park and the D C Thomson
building. The Flat Iron Conservation Area borders the site in the northeast corner on the Chapel
Street frontage.
The scale of buildings around the site varies from two and three storey properties around
Blackfriars Street and Chapel Street to larger scale eight to twelve storey buildings along
Dearman’s Place and around the river Irwell. The Edge residential development recently
completed to the east of the site rises to twenty-one storeys.
There is no dominant style of building in the vicinity of the site with existing buildings ranging
from Victorian properties forming the historical grain to Chapel Street and the wider
conservation area, to modern structures such as Trinity Bridge House, the Lowry hotel and the
Edge apartment development.
There is no dominant building rhythm around the site. However, the site’s context is
characterised by the historical tight street pattern to the northeast, with all other adjacent sites
being made up of large-scale building plots.
20
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Existing roads within the site include an unnamed private service road situated to the east of the
D C Thomson building that leads to the hotel service yard, Clowes Street which provides the
only vehicular access to the Edge apartments and Barlow’s Croft, a narrow cul-de-sac that only
serves the warehouse building that front it.
It is proposed to demolish all buildings on the site and erect two blocks on the site arranged at 90
degrees to both the river and Chapel Street. The highest of these, closest to the river, would be a
40-storey tower between the Lowry hotel and the Edge apartments. The tower (Block A) would
be set back from the river by 23m, would measure 35m by 16.5m and has a two storey base that
contains a spa and leisure facility for the Lowry Hotel. This two-storey base would be set back
by between 9m and 10m from the river. In comparison the Edge apartments are just 3m from the
river and the Lowry Hotel is 7m from the rivers edge. Behind this tower would be a 19-storey
block (Block B) that would run up to Chapel Street. This block would measure 81m by 14.5m
and would sit on a larger four-storey podium base that fronts a new internal access road that
serves as the main access to the development. There would be a two storey base (Block C) that
fronts Chapel Street that would be set back 8.5m from the highway. The 19 storey element of
the building would be set back 15m from the carriageway.
The top of the tower would feature an illuminated screen.
The development would provide a total of 552 apartments. There would be a mix of one, two
and three bedroomed dwellings as well as a number of serviced apartments.
The mix of apartment types is as follows:84 serviced apartments
43 studios
198 one-bed apartments
219 two-bed apartments
6 three-bed apartments
2 penthouses
D C Thomson would be relocated within the development in new premises comprising
5,000sq.ft (465sq.m) on the Chapel Street frontage in the 19 storey building. In addition there
would be 35,000sq.ft (3249sq.m) of commercial floorspace (A1, A2, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2) at
ground and first floor level throughout the development.
The material proposed for the tower is glass. The tower is intended to be simple and elegant.
There would be four types of glazing – clear glazed panels to living rooms, obscure glass privacy
panels to bedrooms, solid glazed panels hiding the structure of the building and solid vertical
louvered panels that would provide natural ventilation to the apartments. At the base of the
tower, a large double storey entrance to the apartments marks the corner of the building. Closer
to the Lowry Hotel the two storey spa facility would extend beyond the tower and this would be
the location for the street level entrance to the spa facility. This full height two storey base
21
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
would be fully glazed to the internal street and moving round the base to the river this would
give way to obscure glazing that would allow glimpses of the spa with solid walls screening the
swimming pool and saunas on the river elevation.
The 19 storey building would be predominantly glazed at ground floor to the commercial units,
the remainder of the building would feature a similar glazing system to the tower but would also
include rendered panels to the structure of the building, glazed balconies and perforated metal
screens.
Parking would be provided in two basement levels as well as within the podium of the 19 storey
block. The visual impact of the car parking is reduced by the commercial uses at ground and
first floors. The podium creates an upper level of private landscaped space that serves as private
gardens for the 3 bedroomed apartments. There would be a total of 228 car parking spaces in
this first phase, 88 of these, would be managed spaces for the Lowry Hotel.
In addition there would be new single storey primary electricty sub-stations located on the infill
site between Clowes Street and Barlows Croft.
There would also be a link at first floor level from the existing Lowry Hotel into the proposed
spa and leisure facility at the base of the 40-storey tower.
It is proposed that the development is accessed via two existing roads. The primary site access to
the development is proposed via a new road located between Dearman’s Place and Clowes Street
that is currently used as a private service road. This would provide vehicular access to all the
residential blocks as well as to the Lowry hotel. Clowes Street provides secondary vehicular
access to a small number of car parking spaces serving the commercial units in the 19-storey
block. Clowes Street also provides the main vehicular access to the Edge development and
would continue to serve as a main pedestrian route from Chapel Street to the riverside walkway.
At ground level the street would be animated with both commercial and retail units with a line of
trees to assist informal spill out from those units. As part of the development a new signalised
pedestrian crossing on Chapel Street adjacent to the entrance into the Deva Centre would be
provided. Surface level car parking would be provided in front of the new electricity substations.
Pedestrian access within and around the site is to be enhanced as part of the development.
Pavements would also be improved on Clowes Street and on the new main access into the site
that is currently a private service road.
The site is well served by public transport with Chapel Street having 19 bus services running on
it. Central Salford rail station is approximately 200m away and Manchester Victoria train station
approximately 500m away. In addition the site is very close to the regional centre.
22
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The application has been amended significantly since it was first submitted. These amendments
have been driven by officer and consultee concerns. These amendments have resulted in blocks
being divided and space and light within the centre of the site being increased.
The original scheme has been amended since it was first submitted by the increase in the height
of the tower from 36 storeys to 40 storeys. In addition, the buildings have been made more
slender and repositioned to increase the distance away from the Edge apartments.
The application is accompanied by a number of documents:o Daylight and Sunlight Assessment
o Environmental Wind Study
o Transport Impact Assessment
o Environmental Noise Study
o Secure By Design
o Flood Risk Assessment
o Archaeological Desk Top Study
This application represents the first phase of the overall development would be phased. The
second phase would be the four remaining towers, the three 13 storey blocks and the 25 storey
block closest to Trinity Bridge House.
SITE HISTORY
In April 1999 planning permission was granted in outline for the development of the larger
Chapel Wharf site for mixed of uses comprising offices, hotels, residential, retail, restaurants and
public houses (99/39108/OUT). Buildings completed within that original outline site include the
Lowry hotel and the Bridge apartment building.
CONSULTATIONS
Manchester City Council – Manchester and Salford City Councils are currently working in
partnership to develop a strategy for the Irwell Corridor that is intended to guide a co-ordinated
approach to future land use and development within the Corridor area. It is believed that the
determination of these applications for such a significant level of development on such key sites
within the Corridor would be premature in advance of this strategy being agreed.
In addition, while the information submitted with both applications gives full consideration to the
setting of the sites within the City of Salford it fails to give consideration to the historic
environment that lies directly opposite the application sites within the City of Manchester. The
Parsonage Gardens Conservation Area extends along the riverside from the north-east as far as
(and encompassing) the Grade II ‘listed’ Century Buildings. The applications should explicitly
demonstrate that full regard has been given to this matter in accordance with the guidance
contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15.
23
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends conditions regarding
contaminated land and noise.
CABE – Had a number of fundamental concerns with regard to the submitted outline application
and have not made specific comment about this detailed application. They felt that there was too
much accommodation and their concerns related mainly to the site planning and the massing of
the slab blocks.
They have been involved in discussions about amendments to the scheme but their latest
response to the amended outline scheme still objects on the grounds of overdevelopment and
they seek a fundamental rethink of the scheme. It is important to note that they have not made
any criticism of the height or location of the tower and have stated that they are pleased to see
that the generally the accommodation proposed is wider than it is deep and that the ends of the
blocks are animated with windows and do not have the more usual blank flank wall.
United Utilities – No objections.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company –welcomes the significant revisions to the
proposals that take fully into account earlier concerns expressed by CABE. This is a major and
imposing project that will enhance the Regional Centre as a whole and accords completely with
the Central Salford Draft Vision and Regeneration framework.
Environment Agency – Now has no objection in principle to the proposed development but
requests that conditions be attached regarding contamination.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – There is an archaeological implication for this
development. The site is adjacent to the junction of Gravel Lane and Chapel Street which
formed part of medieval Salford. The applicant has already begun to address archaeological
issues through the submission of an archaeological desk top study but a condition should be
attached to secure all archaeological interests.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Unit – Consider that the scheme will generate
crime owing to the density and configuration of the apartments and freedom of movement and
permeability and strongly object to the scheme and recommend refusal. The density of this
development and the existing properties adjacent places an extreme burden upon the volume of
traffic off the site via a single access/egress route onto Chapel Street and the potential congestion
at the intersection with this junction. The opportunity for crime around this proposed
development is high.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – Appreciates that the development is
already accessible by public transport but considers that there may be capacity problems to be
24
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
addressed and therefore requests that financial contributions secured through a S106 agreement.
It is also recommended that travel plans be submitted.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified of both the submitted and the amended plans:
All apartments in The Edge, Clowes Street
All apartments in Century Buildings, St Mary’s Parsonage
All apartments in The Bridge, 40 Dearmans Place
Lowry Hotel and Trinity Bridge House, Dearmans Place
Delphian House, New Bailey Street
Caxton Hall, Hilton House and Black Lion Hotel, Chapel Street
1-5 (incl) Black Lion Court, 75-79 Chapel Street
81 to 95 and Sacred Trinity Church, Chapel Street
1 and 3 Gravel Lane
Conavon Court, Blackfriars Street
All apartments in The Gallery, 18 Blackfriars Street
14, 16 and 22 to 28 Blackfriars Street
All apartments in the Textile Apartments, 10 Blackfriars Street
10 Booth Street
All apartments in Chapel Buildings, 4 Booth Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of 70 letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity
on both the submitted and amended schemes. Objections have principally been received from
residents of The Edge and Century Buildings across the river in Manchester. The following
issues have been raised:The proposal conflicts with policy H1 in that it does not contribute to the mix of
dwellings in the area and leads to an oversupply of flats.
Overdevelopment
Insufficient amenity and open space is provided for future residents
The height, scale and massing of the development is inappropriate.
There is insufficient car parking.
The scheme is contrary to policy.
Impact on adjacent buildings is unacceptable.
The principal of a very tall tower on this site was not envisaged under the original
masterplan for the area
25
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
I have also received a detailed objection to the scheme on behalf of Countryside, the developers
of the Edge apartment scheme. As well as objecting to the scheme for the reasons outlined
above they have in addition prepared their own report assessing the impact of the proposed
development on sunlight and daylight on blocks B, C and D of the Edge. Their report concludes
that a wide selection of floors and blocks were tested and the results indicate that the level of
daylight and sunlight is below the recommended levels as detailed in the BRE guidelines and
that the proposals will have a detrimental effect on the level of daylight and sunlight on the Edge.
The report does also point out that the BRE guidance is not mandatory and should not be seen as
part of planning policy. But the agents acting for Countryside point out that it is nonetheless a
material factor that must be taken into account when assessing an application.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY.
DP3 - Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS5 – Central Salford
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H1
Housing Supply, H6 & H11 Open Space Provision.
DRAFT REPLACEMENT UDP POLICY
Site Specific: MX1 – Development in Mixed-Use Areas
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES3 Design of Public Space, DES5 Tall Buildings,
H1 Supply of Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development,
MX2 – Chapel Street frontage, DES2 Circulation and Movement, 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 scale, massing and design of the building is of
sufficiently high quality in this important part of the city, impact of the development on
neighbours, whether there is sufficient parking and open space provision.
Principle of the Development
Policy H1 requires that an adequate supply of housing be 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.
26
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Policy ST11 seeks to ensure that new development is located on the most sustainable sites within
the City and that less sustainable sites are only brought forward when necessary. The policy is
based on the sequential approaches to development that are set out in national policy guidance
and policy DP1 of Regional Planning Guidance for the North-West
Draft Policy MX1/1 states that Chapel Street East will be developed as a vibrant mixed use area
with a broad range of uses. Appropriate uses include housing, offices and retail uses. In
determining whether a proposed mix of uses is appropriate, regard will be had to a number of
factors, including the positive impact of the development on the regeneration of the wider area,
the use on adjoining sites, the prominence of the location and the existing and previous use of the
site.
Draft Policy MX2 requires development along Chapel Street to incorporate active uses at ground
floor level, including retail, food and drink and financial and professional services.
The site is previously developed in a highly accessible location within the Regional Centre. The
principle of the redevelopment of the site is therefore acceptable and in accordance with national
government guidance. The application proposes a mix of uses, namely residential, commercial
and retail, including active uses at ground floor level along Chapel Street, which is in accordance
with Draft policies MX1 and MX2. The proposal itself has a mix of studio, one, two and three
bedroom apartments. I consider that in this very central location within the regional centre, the
level of provision is appropriate. The intended retail/commercial units offer activity at ground
floor level. The proposed mix of uses is in accordance with policy H1 and I consider the
proposed uses would provide an appropriate level of commercial activity that will result in a
positive redevelopment of this vacant 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.
Draft policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public
space, that public space must be designed to:
i) Have a clear role and purpose, responding to established or proposed local economic, social,
cultural and environmental needs;
ii) Reflect and enhance the character and identity of the area;
iii) Form an integral part of, and provide an appropriate setting for, surrounding developments;
iv) Be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit;
v) Be of an appropriate scale;
27
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
vi) Connect to established pedestrian routes and other public spaces; and
vii) Minimise, and make provision for, maintenance requirements.
Draft policy DES5 states that tall buildings will be permitted where they meet a number of
criteria. Those criteria include that the scale of the development is appropriate to its context and
location; that the location is highly accessible to public transport, walking and cycling; that the
building would relate positively to and interact well with the adjacent public realm; that the
building would be of the highest quality design; that the building would make a positive addition
to the skyline and would not detract from important views and that there would be no
unacceptable impact on the setting of a listed building or on the character or appearance of a
conservation area. The reasoned justification for the policy goes on to say that tall buildings are
more likely to be appropriate within the mixed use areas identified on policy MX1
The architects for the scheme have sought to achieve a high quality of design and have made
amendments to this design as a result of concerns expressed by CABE. The City Council’s
architectural consultant, Peter Hunter, considers that the scheme, and the further amendments to
it, is of the highest quality and I consider that his comments are worth setting down in full.
In my view the discussions held as a result of CABE’s comments and the City Council’s concerns
have had a very beneficial effect on the architecture and urban design of the proposed
development.
In particular the new urban geometry provides a more harmonious and dynamic range of
proportions, scale and heights. By reducing and dividing the central block there are greater
wall to wall dimensions and much improved visual and sunlight penetration.
The emerging design of ground and podium level streetscape is to be welcomed and as
previously discussed would benefit greatly by becoming part of an overall landscape strategy for
the whole Chapel Wharf quarter. This would enable colours, textures, lighting, signage and
planting to be co-ordinated and so create an identifiable destination within the City.
The pedestrian routes are now more defined with active frontages and will provide opportunities
for daytime and nighttime character with public art perhaps forming a theme towards the
western end of Chapel Street.
The additional height proposed for the main tower will increase its prominence and create a
visual dialogue with the other tall structures being built in the area. For these reasons, the
choice of cladding material will be crucial to the architectural character and should also be
considered in daylight and nighttime vistas along Chapel Street and other long views. The
‘silhouette crown’ deserves very special consideration with possibilities for aerial sculpture and
imaginative lighting.
28
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The proposals have evolved into a more confident character and when realised will enhance the
architectural quality of the surrounding buildings and give Chapel Wharf the extra dimensions
of city life already begun by the Edge and famous Calatrava bridge.
The proposed material, as described earlier in this report, would provide a sympathetic contrast
to the surrounding older buildings and would maintain the quality of the new developments that
has been established in the area, such as the Lowry Hotel and The Edge.
The use of predominantly glazed materials would allow visibility into the ground level uses and
would provide for an animated night time perspective across this part of the City.
The provision of the new public spaces through the site – to Chapel Street, between the two
buildings and on the river frontage are also features of the scheme. The spaces have been
designed well and open up pedestrian routes from Chapel Street to the riverside walkway in
keeping with the traditional street pattern of this part of Chapel Street and the Flat Iron
Conservation Area where the street frontage is punctuated at regular intervals by side streets that
break up the mass of the buildings along the frontage. The new public spaces form an integral
part of the scheme and are of an appropriate scale. I consider that the development fully accords
with draft policy DES3.
The taller buildings on the site are appropriate to their context and location and respond well to
the new public space between them. The buildings are designed to a high standard and use high
quality materials. I consider that the proposed development accords with policy DES5.
Impact on adjacent Conservation Areas
There are two nearby conservation areas: The flat iron Conservation Area and the Parsonage
Gardens conservation area (located within Manchester on the opposite side of the River Irwell).
The proposed development would be set back from the frontage of existing buildings on Chapel
Street and would enable public realm improvements to take place. It would not have a
detrimental impact on view into the Conservation Area along Chapel Street. The proposed
single storey electricity sub-station would be located along the western boundary of the
Conservation Area at the Barlow’s Croft cul-de-sac and would not be visible from any key view
points within the conservation area. The Parsonage Gardens Conservation Area is located some
59m away, across the River Irwell. Members should note that The Edge development is closer to
both conservation areas. It demonstrates that modern development can be located harmoniously
with older properties.
Effects of the development on neighbours
Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
29
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
I have received a number of objections from neighbouring residents regarding the impact of the
proposed development on their amenity, and in particular loss of light and privacy. Given the
city centre location of the site and the nature of the development, it is not appropriate to apply
the interface standards that are used to guide development elsewhere within the city. Such
concerns must be considered against the benefits of the scheme, namely the redevelopment of an
underused and largely unattractive site, the provision of a mixture of uses, including active uses
along the Chapel Street frontage, and the construction of buildings which would enhance the area
and which accord fully with other Council policies.
In terms of privacy I consider the separation distance of 59m metres across the river Irwell from
the 40-storey tower to residential properties in Century Buildings to be acceptable with regards
to privacy of its occupiers. To the Edge apartments closest to the river the proposed 40-storey
tower is set back so that there would be no direct window to window views from either
development. It is acknowledged that it is the central block of the Edge development (Block C)
that is most affected by the proposed development. It is worth pointing out that of the two
apartments on each storey in that gable end the living room window to the apartment closest to
Chapel Street faces the other Edge block. The living room of the apartment closest to the river
has a large corner window and so there are wide views that both face the other block in the Edge
and face this proposed development. It is therefore only bedroom windows in each apartmen5 of
Block C at the Edge that directly face this site. The windows in the tower (living rooms and
bedrooms) would be approximately 18.5m from the windows in the Block C of the Edge. This
distance is commensurate with the distance between the individual blocks comprising the Edge
and I am satisfied that this distance, in this location, is acceptable. I do not therefore consider
that there will be any significant loss of privacy or an unacceptable outlook suffered by residents
surrounding the site. I do not consider that the height of the building is such that it would prove
overdominant when viewed from any neighbouring property given the distances and
circumstances described above.
The relationship between Block D of The Edge and the 19-storey Block B of the proposal in that
there would be a separation distance of 12.5m between the The blocks. The impact would be
between bedroom windows in The Edge Block and bedroom windows of the proposed scheme
and a balcony. Block D of The Edge was constructed so that the living room windows did not
face the application site but that bedroom windows would be located just 2m from the boundary
of their site. Although less than would normally be acceptable I consider that in this instance a
distance of 12.5m is acceptable.
The Daylight and Sunlight Assessment indicates that overshadowing impact will be most
significant on Block C of ‘The Edge’ and that the greatest impact on diffuse daylight and direct
sunlight will be to the windows of ‘The Edge’ apartment 117, the lowest habitable room
identified in Block C. The daylight levels in the three rooms of apartment 117, however, are
higher than minimum requirements set by British Standard 8206. It is therefore concluded that
the daylight levels in all other apartments will also be acceptable.
30
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The Daylight and Sunlight report submitted by Countryside worked to BRE guidelines, not to the
British Standards. Both have arrived at different results. I am of the opinion that if, according to
the British Standard, no apartment in The Edge falls below the minimum standard then it would
be incorrect to impose a higher standard than has previously been applied to new development.
It is important to note that the impact on sunlight and daylight on the apartment most affected by
the proposed scheme is the same for the proposed 40-storey tower as it would be for a notional
20 storey block in the same position.
The environmental wind study demonstrates that the conditions within the site are considered
acceptable although some additional measures would be required during the intermediate stage
between building phases. All building entrances were observed to have acceptable sitting or
standing conditions. Conditions at the entrance to the Edge at the southwest corner of the site
remain windy but are improved as a result of the development. Conditions in the surrounding
streets are generally similar to or better than existing site conditions. Particularly conditions
around the Edge and Trinity Bridge House were slightly improved compared to existing site
conditions.
In conclusion, whilst I accept that the amenity of some of the neighbouring residents may be
affected, I consider that the benefits of the scheme, namely the provision of high quality
buildings which would make a positive contribution to the surrounding area, and the removal
from the site of a number of unattractive and under-utilised sites and buildings outweigh
concerns relating to loss of privacy, loss of light and overlooking. I therefore have no objections
to the application in respect of residential amenity.
Highways, Parking and Public Transport
Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks maximum parking standards for all
developments. Within the emerging planning framework and in line with central government
advice there is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.
The traffic impact assessment submitted by the applicant shows that the proposed development
would not have a material impact on the local highway network. Capacity assessments at the
proposed site access junction with Chapel Street show that this junction would operate within
capacity with minimal delays.
I have received objections to the level of parking proposed that there is insufficient parking
provided for the proposed development. The parking levels are in accordance with policy in this
highly accessible location and I consider the parking levels proposed to be acceptable and would
consider a greater level of provision to be contrary to both good practice, government advice and
planning policy. In terms of highway safety I have no objections to the submitted scheme.
Sustainable Construction
31
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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.
The applicant has stated the following with regard to sustainable construction:the development is on a brownfield site
buildings will be designed for modular construction
all units are fully accessible to all
durable materials are proposed
low energy lighting will be used throughout
occupants will be provided with information regarding reducing energy requirements
the level of parking is 60% for the residential units
buildings will be designed to allow for prefabricated cladding construction to minimise
construction waste
prefabricated bathroom pods will be used throughout
all units will have acoustic party walls to minimise sound transmission
natural surveillance is promoted throughout
there will be 24 hour concierge and manned site management office and have been
designed for modular construction.
Open Space Provision
The development provides a significant level of amenity space to the south of the site. 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 1339 bed spaces, which equates to a commuted sum value of £320,396. In
addition, in accordance with the Chapel Street SPG, a contribution of £1000 per apartment would
be generated by the development for environmental improvements. It is envisaged that this sum
would be spent on an extension of the free city centre shuttlebus service that operates in
Manchester, environmental improvements to the surrounding area including public art on the
river frontage, improvements to Chapel Street and improvements to the public transport
infrastructure.
Crime
I consider that the concerns of the architectural liaison unit cannot be successfully addressed
while at the same time meeting the desire of both CABE and the City Council for good
pedestrian links through the scheme from Chapel Street to the riverside walkway. It is inevitable
that a development of this size will generate opportunities for crime but this must be balanced
against the benefits that such a development will bring and I am satisfied that the majority of the
justifiable concerns of the police architectural liaison unit can be met through a condition
requiring a scheme to be submitted that is capable of meeting their secure by design standards.
Other Objections Raised by Neighbours
32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
i) That there is an oversupply of flats in the area and that the scheme amounts to
overdevelopment.
This is a central location where higher dwelling densities should be encouraged and
where it is right to provide apartments. All those objecting to the application live in
apartment schemes themselves. The scheme does supply a greater mix of dwellings than
at the Edge and in terms of the number of dwellings per site area this development would
be less dense than the Edge development.
ii) That insufficient amenity and open space is provided for residents
Again this is a central location where many developments, such as Century Buildings and
the residential schemes on Blackfriars Street have no outdoor amenity space whatsoever.
The development does provide a significant level of amenity space as well as significant
public realm.
iii) That the development is contrary to policy
Planning policy should properly be examined as a whole and I am satisfied that on
balance the development is supported by national, regional and local planning policy.
iv) That the principal of a very tall tower on this site was not envisaged under the original
masterplan for the area.
It is many years since any original masterplan for this area was first envisaged. The
original outline planning approval for a mixed use development on the Chapel Wharf site
did not prescribe any particular mix of height of development.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the policies H6, H11, H8, SPG7, and the Chapel Street SPG the applicant has
agreed to make a financial contribution towards the areas of spend outlined above. A total of
£872,396 would be contributed in this regard. The applicant has also confirmed the use of
sustainable building techniques.
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied that the amended design is of the highest quality and that the application would not
have any significant detrimental effect upon the amenity of neighbouring residents or on the
surrounding area in general. I am satisfied that the proposed development would not only
enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and act as a catalyst for future
successful development but that it would signify the City Councils intent to accept only the
highest quality of development. I am also satisfied that the level of on site parking is acceptable.
I am satisfied that the application complies with policies of the development plan as a whole.
It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions and that
authority be given for the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services to enter into a
33
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act and Section 278 of the
Highways Act.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Standard Condition C01X Landscaping
3. No development shall be started until samples of all facing materials to be used for all
external elevations and the roof of the development have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
4. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
5. No part of the development shall be occupied unless and until the applicant enters into an
Agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act to secure the provision of highway
improvements at the vehicular entrances/exits to the site from Chapel Street and such
improvements have been implemented in full.
6. Any A3, A4 or A5 use shall only operate between the hours of 8am and midnight on any day.
7. No development shall be commenced unless and until a secure by design scheme has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme shall be
capable of being accredited by Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit under
the secure by design scheme.
8. No development shall be commenced unless and until a lighting scheme has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented and thereafter retained prior to the first occupation of the development.
9. No development shall be commenced unless and until a scheme detailing all the following
matters including; sustainable construction techniques; natural ventilation techniques;
sustainable urban drainage systems; techniques to reduce solar heat gain and use of
renewable energy sources; and all energy efficiency and sustainability matters have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the
occupation of any dwelling the approved scheme shall be installed and shall thereafter be
34
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
retained and maintained.
10. Prior to the commencement of development full details of the illuminated screen to the top of
the 40 storey tower shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. Such details as are approved shall be implemented in full and maintained as such
at all times prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
11. Prior to the bringin into use of any A3, A4 or A5 units the details of the fume extraction
system serving the cooking and food preparation areas shall be designed such that there will
be no odour or noise nuisance to local residents and shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The approved system shall be installed and shall be
used at all times that the premises are used for cooking or preparing food. The system shall
be maintained and serviced in accordance with manufacturers recommendations.
12. Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme for the provision of recycling
facilities within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any of the
residential units hereby approved.
13. No development/demolition shall take place within the proposal area until the applicant has
secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a
written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Director of Development Services.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
4. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
5. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
6. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
7. To ensure the design of the scheme discourages crime in accordance with Policy DEV4 of
the City of Salford Adopted UDP and Policy DES11 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement Plan
8. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
35
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
9. In order to address recycling and sustainability issues 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.
10. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
11. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
12. In accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
13. To make a record of remains of archaeological interest in accordance with policy EN14 of
the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, prior to the granting of planning
permission.
2. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980.
3. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be
satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions
precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be
taken by the Council.
APPLICATION No:
05/50913/FUL
APPLICANT:
Abito
LOCATION:
Land At Clippers Quay Trafford Road Salford
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 290 residential units within a block ranging from 8 to
11 storeys with glazed roof canopy above, and 400 sq.m
floorspace for either retail shops or office accommodation and 87
parking spaces
36
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
6th April 2006
Ordsall
BACKGROUND
Members will recall that this application, submitted by Abito for 290 apartments on land at
Clippers Quay, has been presented twice before to the Planning and Transportation Regulatory
Panel on the 19th January 2006 and 3rd November 2005 with previous recommendations to grant
planning permission. At both of the previous Panel meetings members deferred consideration of
the application and requested additional information be supplied.
At the meeting on the 3rd November members requested further consideration of the following
matters: travel plan, model of the proposal in context, details on sustainable drainage and
construction, and consideration of a parking scheme at Merchants Quay.
At the 19th January meeting members requested information on the context of the proposed
development and consideration of a proposed ‘Water Living’ houseboats scheme. This scheme,
has not been submitted as a planning application, is outside the red line boundary of this
application and is proposed by a third party objector to the current application.
I will summarise the information submitted in response to the previous deferrals and will then
present an amended report describing and assessing the planning application as currently
proposed.
Travel Plan
The applicant has 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. It includes the provision of a free one-year Metrolink pass to all new residents.
37
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Detail on sustainable construction and drainage
The applicant has detailed a number of sustainable construction techniques that are identified in
the main body of the report. The applicant has explained in his letter dated 21st November 2005:
“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.” The applicant proposes the use of
photovoltaic cells to the roof of the building in order to generate electricity for the building from
energy from the sun.
Method Statement for Community Parking Scheme
The applicant has submitted a method statement for an investigation into a residents/community
parking scheme at Merchants Quay. The scheme seeks to investigate the 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
undertaken along with site surveys to assess whether a residents or community (residents and
business) parking scheme would be beneficial. The proposals would be subject to a public
consultation process to determine whether residents in the area would be in favour of such a
scheme.
Increase in Parking
The applicant has increased on site car parking from 52 to 85 car parking spaces by way of an
additional floor of parking. Five disabled spaces are proposed within the 85 spaces. Cycle and
motorcycle parking facilities are also proposed.
Change to building height and footprint
To accommodate the additional floor of parking, the applicant has increased the height of the
north elevation by 1.4metres. The number of apartments has remained the same as originally
submitted as the height of the south facing elevation (the elevation facing the cinema site) has
increased by one storey. In addition, the applicant has reduced the footprint of the building by
moving the northern elevation of the building, which faces the dock, 5.5 metres southwards into
the application site.
Shadow Analysis
The original shadow analysis has been updated to reflect the increase in height of 1.4 metres to
the north elevation. 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. The shadow analysis
has not been updated to reflect the footprint of the building moving 5.5 metres further away from
Merchants Quay.
38
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Contextual Information
The submitted contextual material introduces the history of the Manchester Docks, the
regeneration of Salford Quays, covers flagship developments such as the Lowry and NV
buildings, and provides detail regarding Clippers Quay. The applicant explains within this
document that ASK developments, who are part of the same company as Abito, are forming
proposals to develop the former Cinema site at Clippers Quay. The applicant explains that the
development proposed within this current application and the redevelopment of the cinema site
together will help to form a new urban space at Clippers Quay. The contextual information
includes images of existing buildings at the Quays, transport links map of Salford Quays and a
land use plan that shows the location of landmark buildings within the Quays, with the
application site identified. The applicant also likens redevelopment at the Quays to
redevelopment of waterfront areas in Barcelona, Toronto, Boston, Malmo and Rotterdam.
Having reviewed the submitted contextual information I am satisfied that the proposed scheme
has due regard to the existing context of the Quays and in particular, the Second Renaissance of
Salford Quays and the emerging proposals for mixed use development of vacant land and
buildings to the rear of the proposed Abito building.
Pre-application Details of ‘Water Living’ Scheme
The developer of the adjacent land, Harbourside Marina PLC, has elaborated on his proposals for
a ‘Water Living’ development on a site measuring 12m wide and 55m long and on the water
within Dock 6, through a pre-application meeting with Council Officers and by letter. In
summary the proposal involves the development of 28 houseboats and proposes to utilise the
entire water area for development along with a four storey multi-level car park and other on-land
support facilities including bin stores. Harbourside Marina has suggested that it would be a high
quality scheme and that this could be achieved through a management agreement and by
planning conditions, however, at present it is difficult to assess whether the stated desire for
quality development could be adequately controlled. The proposal for static houseboats is, as
Harbourside Marina has explained, an untested concept in the United Kingdom.
There are a number of environmental concerns relating to the water based aspect of the scheme
that require further clarification and, as a Schedule 2 development, it may require an
Environmental Impact Assessment.
1. The water within the Dock 6 basin is not treated and there is an issue of water contact and
contamination having regard to the proposed residential use of the houseboats that has
not been addressed.
2. This basin is not protected from the ingress of litter and other debris from the Ship Canal,
which has both implications for both visual amenity and health.
3. The arrangements for foul drainage and refuse disposal that you describe would remain to
be assessed for suitability. The location and requirements for a pump house, bin store
and other supporting accommodation have not been clarified.
4. The provision for the maintenance of the dock walls has not been explained.
39
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
In terms of the land-based development, the scheme proposes a multi-storey car park for over
100 spaces on a quayside location. As a result of the shape of the site, it would be a long narrow
building and is proposed at four storeys high. It would be located on the boundary of the site
adjoining the Abito scheme and would project forward of the existing Optimum House office
block and the proposed Abito apartment building. The Council’s well established policy and
priority has been to seek active uses and frontages and high quality development fronting the
Docks and to the Dockside walkways. The Council has been successful in achieving this.
The ‘Water Living’ scheme is described for the Panel’s information only as the developer of the
proposal considers that the Abito scheme would prejudice its implementation. A summary of
their objection and an assessment of whether the Abito scheme would affect its potential
implementation is discussed later in the report.
I will now turn to the assessment of the planning application as currently proposed for
consideration.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
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 eight 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 16 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 85 car parking spaces are
located at ground and mezzanine floor levels. The 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 clad in photovoltaic cells
supported by metal posts and cables, which would cover the internal courtyard.
40
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The Abito concept is 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 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 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. As stated in the background section above the applicant has submitted further
information throughout the application process.
The applicant, Abito, has also submitted information relating to the Abito development at Gravel
Lane, Greengate, now under construction, 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 permission for the retention of a car park for a temporary period until October
2006 (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.
41
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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 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, Architectural Consultant – Satisfied with the design following amended elevations.
PUBLICITY
42
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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
The above addresses and all objectors to the application have been consulted over amendments
to the application.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 49 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
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Parking is insufficient and will result in on street parking especially in Merchants Quay
Development will lead to displacement of car parking,
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
Other recent developments in the area have 100% car parking,
This development would set a precedent for inadequate parking,
Free travel would only be for one year,
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,
Parking on Merchants Quay is already a problem,
The proposed glass and steel building is out of context with the area,
The proposal will drive tourists away from Salford Quays,
The development is out of context as it will provide transient low cost housing,
43
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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
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;
An 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. The scheme has been detailed in the Background section of the
report. Harbourside Marina explain their objections to the application are that:
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
I have also received three letters of support. One each 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.
DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICIES
Site Specific: MX1/3 Development in Mixed Use Areas – Salford Quays
44
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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.
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 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
45
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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. The reduced footprint of the building enhances the size of the dockside walkway, in
accordance with policy DES6.
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.
The submitted shadow report has been amended to take into account the increase in height of 1.4
metres, but not the reduction in building footprint. The impact of shadow to Merchants Quay
would be marginally reduced as a result of the 5.5 metres pull back from the dockside. The
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 and
to limited periods of the day, 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
46
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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. The applicant has 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.
The applicant has offered to fund such a study up to the value of £20,000. I am advised by the
Highway Engineer that such a study could be undertaken within a £20,000 budget.
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. The parking
study for merchants Quay would also need to be tied into a S106 Obligation. Subject to such an
agreement being reached I am satisfied with the proposed level of parking.
The site is well served by a choice of means of transport and the development would support
sustainable patterns of transport, reducing reliance on the car in accordance with government
and regional guidance and local planning policy.
Design and Crime Issues
The architectural liaison unit raised detailed concerns about the design that have been largely
addressed by the applicant. 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
47
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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.
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 (PV Cells), a renewable source of energy. The applicant intends to install PV Cells
to the roof structure.
The apartments sanitary ware will include water flow control devices.
All timber used in the building will be Forrest Stewardship Approved.
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 am satisfied the photovoltaic cells would be in accordance with the general thrusts of
policy EN17a. 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. The applicant has
submitted contextual information with regards to this proposal and the wider area, which I have
summarised in the opening section of the report.
48
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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 prejudices the possible future development of this site 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 this site.
Any future planning application on the land 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.
In summary, the proposed Abito development would not preclude the water-based element of the
‘Water Living’ scheme, subject to the environmental constraints described earlier, and the
footprint of the building has been moved 5.5m away from the edge of the dockside walkway. I
do not consider that the land-based element of the Harbourside Marina scheme, the four storey
multi-storey car park and support uses, would be a suitable use or of an appropriate scale
adjacent to the waterside in a location where high quality development and active uses are
sought. Some development at a lower level, however, may be acceptable and would not be
prejudiced by the Abito scheme. I do not consider that this current application is contrary to
policy DES1.
The 12m wide strip of land currently provides access from Clippers Quay to the Dockside and is
subject to a covenant, to which the Council is party, to ensure access for maintenance of the dock
walls. It is the only means of access to the east and south boundaries of the quay. The Abito
application does not impinge on this existing use.
As the Councils architectural advisor considers the scheme to be acceptable, and given the
information submitted with the application, I recommend this application be assessed on its
merits without the need for a masterplan first.
The proposal maintains reasonable distances from neighbouring buildings and I consider it
would not necessarily hamper or reduce the development options for the wider Dock 6 area. 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.
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.
49
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Other Matters Not Covered Above
Whilst a library and social amenity uses may be acceptable at this site the submitted 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.
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.
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.
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 committed to funding a parking study, at Merchants Quay, up to the value of
£20,000. The applicant has also confirmed the use of some sustainable building techniques.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the main issues are the level of parking and how people travel to and from the
development, whether the design and density of the proposed building is acceptable, the impact
of shadow and whether neighbouring land is stifled by the proposal. 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. I consider that at this
accessible location in close proximity to Metrolink, with measures of a travel plan and free one
year Metrolink and buss pass that the level of on site parking is acceptable. The proposed
Merchants Quay parking study would also allow residents of Merchants Quay to decide if
additional parking restrictions to limit parking there to residents and business of Merchants Quay
is appropriate. 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, one free one year travel pass for each flat and a parking study
50
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following 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 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
51
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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.
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.
52
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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 Initiatvies, 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 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.
53
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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.
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.
54
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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:
05/51648/FUL
APPLICANT:
K France And A Davies
LOCATION:
Land Formerly 272 - 280 Chapel Street Salford M3 5JZ
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of one-six storey
building comprising A1/A3/B1 uses on ground floor with 38
apartments above together with associated car parking and
alteration to existing vehicular access
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to an existing used car showroom and forecourt on Chapel Street.
The existing building is single storey and clad with a grey and blue metal cladding system. Cars
are currently displayed within the main building and to the west on a forecourt fronting St Philips
Place.
Adjoining the existing building is a vacant public house. Beyond the public house is an
accountants firm which occupies all of the remaining buildings within this block to Great George
Street. To the rear of the site is Bank Street, St Philips Square and the Grade II* St Philips
55
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Church. To the west of the site is the Angel Centre, a modern two storey extension to the former
Salford Royal Hospital. The Angel Centre is a clinic and the former Salford Royal is now in
residential use.
The site is within the Adelphi / Bexley Square Conservation Area, the Chapel Street
Regeneration Area and the boundary of the Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company
(URC).
The site is a key location on the northern side of Chapel Street. The openness of application site
and the low height of the Angel Centre, allow for views of the listed building from a number of
vantage points along Chapel Street.
The application seeks the demolition of the existing building and erection of one five storey
building comprising 33 apartments. The ground floor would comprise of two commercial units
(total 346 sq.m - class A1/A3/B1) together with associated
parking for ten cars and alterations to the existing vehicular access.
The application has been amended and substantially redesigned from that originally submitted.
The overall height of the building has been reduced, the elevational detail has been simplified
and th4 type of materials have been improved to enhance the relationship with surrounding
buildings especially St Phillips Church. The proposed mix of apartments would be: nine-one bed
apartments, 23 – two bed apartments and one-three bed apartment. Each of the consultees have
been re-consulted upon the amended scheme.
A further application for Conservation Area Consent has also been received for the demolition of
the building (06/52247/CON).
SITE HISTORY
In June last year a similar scheme for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of one-six
storey building comprising A1/A3/B1 uses on ground floor with 38 apartments above together
with associated car parking and alteration to existing vehicular access was refused under the
Council’s scheme of delegation (05/51648/FUL). The reasons for reason are:
1. The proposal would, by reason of its size, siting design and external appearance, be
detrimental to the setting of St Philips Church a Grade II* Listed Building contrary to City of
Salford Unitary Development Plan policy EN12 and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan
policies CH5 and DES1
2.
The proposed size, siting, design and external appearance of the development would not
preserve or enhance the character of the Adelphi / Bexley Square Conservation Area contrary to
56
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
the adopted City of Salford Unitary Development Plan policies EN11 and DEV2 and Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement Plan policies CH4 and DES1
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to the provision of a site
investigation report and noise assessment.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – The URC still has some reservations about the
limited scale of commercial floorspace, but overall no objections
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Offered advice regarding security concerns. The
issues raised have been addressed through the re-design.
The Environment Agency – No objection. Advise that a site investigation condition be attached
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – There are no known features of archaeological
interest.
English Heritage – No objections to amended scheme subject to conditions.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by way of press and site notice.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 114 (con) The Royal, Wilton Place
264, 260 – 268, 270 Chapel Street
Maxdov House 337 - 341 Chapel Street
The Bell Tower 357 Chapel Street
St Philips Church
St Philips Rectory
The Angel Healthy Living Centre St Philips Place
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection from Cllr Salmon in response to the planning application
publicity. No further correspondence has been received in response to the amendments to the
scheme. Therefore, I have considered the initial concerns. The following issues have been
raised:Quality of the submission
57
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Car parking problems
Poor design
However, support is given to the commercial floorspace
I have also received one letter of support. The following areas of support are listed:
Move to the twenty-first century
Needed to link Salford and Manchester
Able to attract jobs and investment
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP1 Economy in the Use of Land and Buildings, SD1 The North West
Metropolitan Area – Regional Poles and Surrounding Areas
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC14/2 Improvement Proposals
Other policies:
DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and
Crime, T13 Car Parking, EN11 Conservation Areas, EN12 Protection and
Enhancement of Listed Buildings, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, H6 and
H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments, CS3
Central Salford.
DRAFT REPLACEMENT UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: MX1/1 Development in Mixed Use Areas
Other policies:
DES1 Respecting Context, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours,
DES11 Design and Crime, DEV6 Incremental Development, H1 Provision
of New Housing Development, H8 Open Space Provision Associated with
New Housing Developments, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle
Parking in New Development, CH5 Development within Conservation
Areas, CH4 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building,
DEV6 Incremental Development.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the principle of the development,
whether the design, scale and massing of the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the
development plan, car parking, open space, design and crime and whether the proposal is
acceptable in relation to St Philips Church.
58
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The Principle of Residential Development
Adopted Policy H1 states that the Council will endeavour to ensure that the city’s housing stock
is able to meet the housing requirements of all groups within Salford by promoting a number of
measures, including the release of land to accommodate new house building.
Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to
develop previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be
considered. PPG3 also states that, when considering conversions, a more flexible approach is
required with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking.
The site has previously been developed and is a brownfield site, as such, I consider that the
principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential accommodation is acceptable and
accords with the thrust of the policies highlighted above.
Draft Policy MX1/1 states that Chapel Street East will be developed as a vibrant mixed use area
with a broad range of uses. Appropriate uses include housing, offices and retail uses. In
determining whether a proposed mix of uses is appropriate, regard will be had to a number of
factors, including the positive impact of the development on the regeneration of the wider area,
the use on adjoining sites, the prominence of the location and the existing and previous use of the
site.
The application proposes a mix of uses, namely residential, commercial, retail and leisure
including active uses at ground floor level which is in accordance with Draft policy MX1. I am
satisfied that the proposed development incorporates a satisfactory mix of uses and therefore
complies with the above policies.
Adopted Policy EC3 states that where existing industrial and non-retail commercial sites become
vacant, the City Council will seek to re-use or redevelop them for similar or related uses, except
where one or more of the following criteria apply. These include where the sites or premises
could be used for other purposes without resulting in a material or unacceptable shortfall in the
range of sites or premises available for economic development, where alternative employment
generating development would be more appropriate, or there is a strong environmental case for
rationalising land uses or creating open space.
Given the amount and mix of none residential floorspace proposed I am satisfied that the
proposed development incorporates a satisfactory mix and would provide alternative
employment generating uses in accordance with the above policies.
Setting of the Listed Building / Conservation Area
59
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Adopted policy EN12 states that the Council will not normally permit any development that
would be detrimental to the setting of a Listed Building or the environmental quality of the
surrounding area.
Revised replacement policy CH4 states that planning permission will only be granted for
development that would not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building or
would detract from the architectural and historic character of a listed building.
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 have the
need to encourage high standards of development which are in keeping with the character of the
area.
Revised replacement policy CH5 states that development in Conservation Areas will only be
permitted where it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation
Area.
I have consulted English Heritage due to the potential impact of the proposal on the setting of a
Grade II* Listed Building. English Heritage raised initially concerns regarding the height and
position of the proposal and the impact it would have on the setting of the listed building. The
scheme has been substantially re-designed and the height of the building reduced, proposed
palette of materials and the detail of the elevations has been simplified and improved. English
Heritage have subsequently withdrawn their objection to the application.
I consider that the amended proposal, as a result of its siting and reduced height, would help
frame views of St Phillips Cburch and would help set a benchmark for any future redevelopment
of the Angel Centre.
The materials proposed have been simplified to mainly stone, glass and cladding. The
positioning and proportions of the windows have also been simplified which has introduced
symmetry and therefore reflects the simplicity and symmetry of the church. This design change
is supported by English Heritage and the Council’s design advisor.
In considering all aspects of the proposal as discussed above, and with appropriate conditions
requiring samples of external materials, and details of colour treatment for the windows, I am
satisfied that the proposal would make a positive contribution to the character of this
conservation area and would frame important views of one of the Council’s Grade II* Listed
Building with a high quality scheme. As such I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the
policies highlighted above.
Design, Layout and Siting
60
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Adopted Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when
determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to
its surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision.
Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the
Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.
Adopted Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and
property security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors
including the provision of security features.
Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials. The Inspector has recommended no
changes to this policy.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP
The design of the Chapel Street elevation would introduce a stone facade. The corner of the
building on St Philips Place and Chapel Street would include a curved feature above ground
floor height. The right hand element o he Chapel Street elevation would be set back and would
provide the entrance to the residential element of the scheme. Both the residential entrance and
the curve would be of a different material (metal cladding) to help define the focal point of the
corner and the entrance point. The fourth storey would be set back from the main frontage.
The design features of the Chapel Street elevation would be replicated on the other elevations.
The St Philips Place elevation would also include a stone facade and recessed fourth floor. Glass
balustrades would be introduced on the opening windows. The rear corner would have
balconies. These balconies would not project beyond either the rear or side elevations.
A second retail entrance would be provided to the larger unit from the St Philips Place elevation.
A second entrance would also be provided from St Philips Place to the rear smaller unit. I
consider that the entrance points and shop fronts will introduce ground floor activity around the
building.
Vehicular access would be provided to the internal ground floor car park from Bank Street. The
entrance gates would be powder coated steel. The opening would match the proportions of the
commercial ground floor windows and doorways. Cycle storage and bins storage would also be
provided from the vehicular access point and would include a glazed element to replicate the
design proportions of the access point. A commercial unit is also proposed on the Bank Street
and St Philips corner. This would introduce further ground floor activity to St Philips Place and
the rear of the building where it would front the out space adjacent to the church. Given that the
61
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
bin store is identified on the submitted plan I have attached a condition requiring recycling
details to be provided.
The proposal would result in built development to the boundary of the site. However, the
residential element at first floor and above would be situated around the periphery of the block.
A court yard would be provided at first floor level and would provide amenity space for all
future occupiers. The position of the court yard would also reduce the scale of the building
adjacent to the neighbouring buildings. The units fronting St Philips Place would have a rear
bedroom aspect which would overlook the internal court yard. These bedrooms would maintain
13m from the common boundary. I am of the opinion that this would ensure that future
occupiers are provided with sufficient aspect and would not preclude the redevelopment of the
neighbouring building in the future.
All of the windows would be set in from the main faēade to introduce depth and shadow features
to the elevations. Powder coated louvres would provide solar protection to the fourth floor and
curved corner feature. The balustrades would also be powder coated. I have attached a
condition requiring the colour of the powder coated elements to be agreed. The feature elements
would be metal cladding.
In conclusion I consider that the design of the scheme has been simplified and improved. It has
also reduced the height of the building and the number of apartments proposed. The simplicity
of the design takes reference from the neighbouring listed church. I consider that the current
design provides an attractive balance between protecting and enhancing the setting of the listed
building and providing a focal point along Chapel Street.
As discussed earlier, the materials proposed are an integral part of the design quality of the
building. Therefore, given the relationship of the proposal to the neighbouring listed building
and its location within a conservation area, it is necessary that the materials are of a high quality.
I have attached a condition requiring samples of the materials to be submitted prior to the
commencement of development.
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 10 car parking spaces would be provided, I have no
highway objection to the application. The objections received refer to the amount of car parking
62
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
and the location of the proposed access. Whilst I acknowledge that the proposed level of car
parking would not provide 1 space per apartment I consider that the location of the proposed
development within a city centre location is such that the proposed level is acceptable and would
accord with the principles of Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 : Transport.
I have no highway objections and I am of the opinion that the level of parking proposed across
the site is acceptable.
Design and Crime
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 DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer (ALO) has commented on the application. Several
concerns were raised regarding security concerns. The applicant has meet with the ALO and redesigned the scheme to address their concerns.
Therefore, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the thrust of policies DEV4 and DES11.
Open Space
Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play
within new housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11 which sets out a sliding
scale for such provision.
Draft Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
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 contribution in this regard would be £65,191. I
am satisfied that the application therefore accords with Adopted policies H6 and H11 and Draft
Policy H8.
Chapel Street Obligation
The applicant has agreed to contribute an additional £33,000 towards environmental
improvements in accordance with the Council’s normal policy with regard to developments in
the Chapel Street area.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
63
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The scheme has been reduced in scale and massing and the number of units reduced from
the previous refused scheme. Moreover, the design of the scheme has been
fundamentally redesigned since the application was first submitted.
The applicant has entered into several discussions with myself, the City Council, the
URC and English Heritage. The comments provided at these discussions have aided the
final design of the scheme.
The developer has agreed to contribute £65,191 towards children’s equipped play space
and open space in accordance with policies H6 and H11.
The developer has agreed to contribute £33,000 towards environmental improvements in
the Chapel Street area.
CONCLUSION
This is a brownfield site within the heart of the regional centre. It is appropriate that it is
developed to a high density commensurate with its location. The scheme is well designed and is
of a high quality. The buildings are arranged so that the street frontage and listed building are
complemented while providing a high standard of living accommodation and environment to
future residents. The development introduces active uses at ground floor and would result in the
redevelopment of a poor quality building.
I consider that the development accords fully with the provisions of the development plan and
that there is no detrimental effect on any interest of acknowledged importance. I recommend
that permission is granted subject to the following conditions and that the Strategic Director of
Customer and Support Services be authorised to enter into a planning obligation for the provision
of public open space in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance note 7 and the
provision of environmental improvements in accordance with the Chapel Street Development
Control Policy note.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the
external elevations of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site
investigation report for the approval of the LPA. 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
64
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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 LPA prior to the start of the
site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the LPA.
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 Chapel Street, and any other local noise sources which are deemed
significant on the site, this shall include predicted noise levels from the proposed A1/A3/B1
uses. 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 Summer Cooling and Rapid Ventilation. 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 and thereafter
retained.
5. The development permitted by this planning permission shall not commence 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 and as required by the Chapel Street
Planning Obligations Development Control Policy Note will be paid to the Local Planning
Authority for open space and recreation space purposes and for local environmental
improvements or such purposes as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
6. This permission shall relate to the amended plan received on 21st February 2006 which
shows a revised scheme.
7. The external powder coated elements which includes, balustrade handrails, windows, louvres
65
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
and metal work hereby approved shall be treated in a colour which is to be agreed in writing
prior to the commencement of the development by the Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. 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 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003 and the Chapel
Street Planning Obligations Development Control Policy Note.
6. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
7. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the
Environment Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551).
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.
2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be
satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions
precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be
taken by the Council.
APPLICATION No:
05/51911/OUT
APPLICANT:
Compete 20-12
66
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
LOCATION:
Land Bounded By The Crescent, Hulme Street And Gaythorn
Street Salford
PROPOSAL:
Outline application for the erection of a complex of building
ranging in height between two and 18 storeys providing 507
dwellings (apartments and townhouses) a new public square,
2322 sq.m of A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,B1,C1,C2,C3,D1 floorspace and
350 car parking spaces
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION
This development represents an alternative development on a site that already has planning
permission. It incorporates three parcels of separate land ownership. The application has been
driven by the Central Salford URC who, in discussions held towards the end of last year,
persuaded the developers to look at a wider scheme that would accord more closely with the
URC’s vision and regeneration framework.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to several parcels of land on the Crescent at its junction with Oldfield
Road and covers an area of 0.9 hectares. It includes the site of the former Charles Taylor auction
house that lies adjacent to the recently completed Transport House, and an adjoining former
waste transfer station that fronted Hulme Street. It also includes the occupied Black Horse
public house and adjacent open land to the side and rear that is currently used for car parking. It
includes a small single storey hot food takeway on the Crescent frontage and a small
prefabricated building that was until recently in use as a children’s nursery. The nursery and
adjacent open land are in the ownership of the City Council.
The site is bounded by The Crescent and Gaythorn Street, an unmade road that runs parallel to
Oldfield Road and Hulme Street. To the north beyond the Crescent lies the river Irwell,
university buildings and Adelphi Street. To the east the site is adjacent to Transport House, the
award winning replacement for the former Transport and General Workers Union building, and
beyond Oldfield Road is the Salvation Army premises, a terrace of small shops and the Stamford
House. To the south beyond Hulme Street is the Sutcliffe industrial site. To the east the site
would be adjacent to Listed Buildings on the Crescent. There is no dominant height or style of
building in the surrounding area.
67
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The Black Horse public house is a three storey Victorian property that is not a Listed Building
but is on the Local List of Buildings, Structures and Features of Architectural, Archaeological or
Historic Interest. The site lies within the Crescent Conservation area.
The application has been submitted in outline and the applicant is seeking approval for the siting,
means of access and the design of the proposed development. The proposed development would
comprise a total of nine buildings with two levels of basement car parking providing a total of
364 spaces, 128 of which would be tandem spaces.
The most important feature of the
development is a new public square/boulevard that would run through the centre of the site from
the Crescent to Hulme Street. This space would be 21m wide and approximately 70m in length
and would feature both hard and soft landscaping, water features, tree planting, public art and a
very limited amount of car parking.
The schedule of buildings is as follows:
A three storey building adjacent to the Black Horse – all floors commercial
The Black Horse – the rear third demolished and the building retained in its current use.
A six storey building fronting the Crescent and adjacent to the Black Horse – commercial
at ground floor. This would be adjacent to the public square.
A ten storey building to the rear of the Black Horse providing town houses at its base
with apartments above.
The eighteen storey tower adjacent to the public open square.
A small three storey tower on the Hulme Street frontage between the ten and eighteen
storey tower that provides two town houses.
A seven storey building on the Crescent frontage that would be adjacent to Transport
House – commercial at ground floor
A fifteen storey tower parallel to the eighteen storey building on the other side of the
public square – commercial at ground floor
A nine storey building on the Gaythorn Street / Oldfield Road frontage – commercial at
ground floor with concierge, refuse collection and substation also.
The three main towers, buildings 4, 5 and 8 would drop in height to a maximum of eight storeys
to the rear facing Hulme Street and the tower elements would be set back 12m from the Hulme
Street frontage. The towers would be set back significantly from the Crescent frontage (between
11m and 24m) and there would be two internal courtyards between buildings 4 and 5, and, 8 and
9 measuring 22m and 16m respectively.
The scheme has sought to integrate with the
surrounding buildings fronting the Crescent:
Building 1 is three storeys in height adjacent to the Black Horse public house
Building 7 is seven storeys in height adjacent to the six storey Transport House
Building 3 is six storeys in height fronting the Crescent.
The development uses a mixed palette of high quality natural materials. Brick and stone on The
Crescent frontage and at the base of the buildings, terracotta, glass balconies, render that
68
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
compliments the adjacent Transport House, zinc to the roof, perforated metal screens on the
tower elevations and full height glazing to the ground floor commercial units.
The proposed development would provide a total of 507 apartments and townhouses. In addition
there would be 25,000sq.ft (2323sq.m) of commercial floorspace (A1, A2, A4, A5, B1, D1 and
D2). Access to the development would be from Gaythorn Street and a total of 361 parking
spaces would be provided.
The development would comprise a dwelling mix of 5% three bedroom units, 46% two bedroom
units and 49% one bedroom units. This equates to 25 three beds, 229 two bed and 253 one beds.
The site is well served by public transport with Chapel Street having 19 bus services running on
it. Salford Central and Salford Crescent rail stations are within easy walking distance and in
addition the site is close to the regional centre.
The protected line of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal runs to the south of the site. The
proposed public space created by the development runs on the line of an old canal arm. It is
intended that through the detailed landscaping of this space, water is reintroduced thereby
reflecting the former use of this part of the site.
The application has been amended significantly since it was first submitted with the two main
towers being reduced in height by two storeys each and the mix of apartment types being
amended to include 5% family accommodation and reducing the number of one bedroom units to
under 50%. The original scheme was for a total of 550 dwellings.
SITE HISTORY
In July 2003 planning permission was granted in outline (03/45865/OUT), and in July 2004 a
reserved matters application was approved (04/48329/REM), for the development of a 10 storey
residential building on the site of the former auction house and adjacent waste transfer building.
The development comprised 227 apartments with commercial floorspace on the Crescent and
Gaythorn Street / Oldfield Road frontages. The development fronted the Crescent from
Transport House up to the Black Horse This scheme is an alternative to that development, albeit
on a larger site.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends conditions regarding
contaminated land, noise, vibration, fume extraction and air quality.
United Utilities – No objections but provides advice.
69
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – The URC welcomes the developers
willingness to revise their original proposals (the previous outline permission) so as to
incorporate key principles of the Central Salford draft Vision and regeneration Framework,
namely the breaking up of the development so as to create connections from the Crescent
southwards, whilst maintaining the imposing frontage along the Crescent itself. The URC also
welcomes the change in mix that will help extend the attractiveness of Central Salford to a wider
variety of household sizes. We would particularly like to thank the City Council planning
officers and the developers for their hard work and sensitivity in realigning the original
ambitions for this site to meet the aspirations of the Central Salford draft Vision and
Regeneration Framework.
Environment Agency – No objection in principle to the proposed development but requests that
conditions be attached in order to prevent pollution of any watercourse.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit – There is an archaeological implication for this
development. The site is adjacent to the junction of Gravel Lane and Chapel Street which
formed part of medieval Salford. The applicant has already begun to address archaeological
issues but a condition should be attached to secure all archaeological interests.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections.
English Heritage – No response to date but as no Grade II* listed building is affected by this
development they would not normally respond in detail but would recommend that the
application be dealt with in accordance with local and national policy.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses were notified of both the submitted and the amended plans:
17 – 21 (incl) Crescent
5 and 7-19 Hulme Street
All apartments in Tranport House
5 to 23 and 41 to 47 Oldfield Road
Stamford House and 361 to 365 Chapel Street
1 James Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a total of three letters of objection in response to the planning application
publicity. Objections have been received from two commercial neighbours and Councillor
Salmon objected to the original dwelling mix while at the same time noting that it seemed very
70
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
positive that a bold scheme was coming forward on this site.
raised:-
6th April 2006
The following issues have been
The original mix that included 35% studios as well as another 30% one bed dwellings
was not right.
Disruption to existing businesses
Loss of light
Noise pollution
It would be inappropriate for a planning authority to base its decisions on potentially
monetary receipts rather than the appropriateness of the scheme.
Insufficient amenity and open space is provided for future residents
The height, scale and massing of the development is inappropriate.
Detrimental to the development potential of neighbouring sites.
Insufficient parking
Impact on adjacent buildings is unacceptable.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY.
DP3 - Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS7 – Central Salford
Other policies: DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H1
Housing Supply, H6 & H11 Open Space Provision, EN23 Croal-Irwell Valley.
DRAFT REPLACEMENT UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific: MX1/2 – Development in Mixed-Use Areas, CH5/2 Works Within Conservation
Areas.
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context, DES3 Design of Public Space, DES5 Tall Buildings,
H1 Supply of Housing, H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development,
DES2 Circulation and Movement, 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, R5 Countryside Access Network,
CH4 Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building, CH9 Manchester Bolton and Bury
Canal.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the
development is acceptable, whether the scale, massing and design of the building is of
sufficiently high quality within the conservation area and in this important part of the city,
71
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
impact of the development on neighbours, whether there is sufficient parking and open space
provision.
Principle of the Development
Policy H1 requires that an adequate supply of housing be 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.
Policy ST11 seeks to ensure that new development is located on the most sustainable sites within
the City and that less sustainable sites are only brought forward when necessary. The policy is
based on the sequential approaches to development that are set out in national policy guidance
and policy DP1 of Regional Planning Guidance for the North-West
Draft Policy MX1/2 states that Chapel Street West will be developed as a vibrant mixed use area
with a broad range of uses. Appropriate uses include housing, offices and retail uses. In
determining whether a proposed mix of uses is appropriate, regard will be had to a number of
factors, including the positive impact of the development on the regeneration of the wider area,
the use on adjoining sites, the prominence of the location and the existing and previous use of the
site.
The site is previously developed in a highly accessible location in close proximity to Manchester
City Centre and the services and facilities therein. Planning permission has already been granted
on a significant part of the site for residential development. The principle of the redevelopment
of the site is therefore acceptable and in accordance with national government guidance. The
application proposes a mix of uses, namely residential, commercial and retail, including active
uses at ground floor level along all street frontages including the new public space that runs
through the site, which is in accordance with Draft policy MX1. The proposal itself has a mix of
one, two and three bedroom apartments and townhouses and is one of the first to provide a
significant level of accommodation specifically intended to attract families into new
developments within the City Centre. I consider that in this central location the mix of
accommodation is to be welcomed. The intended retail/commercial units offer activity at ground
floor level as well as at first and second floor level on parts of the Crescent frontage. The
proposed mix of uses is in accordance with policy MX1 and I consider the proposed uses would
provide an appropriate level of commercial activity that will result in a positive redevelopment of
this unsightly and vacant 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
72
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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.
Draft policy DES3 states that where development includes the provision of, or works to, public
space, that public space must be designed to:
i) Have a clear role and purpose, responding to established or proposed local economic, social,
cultural and environmental needs;
ii) Reflect and enhance the character and identity of the area;
iii) Form an integral part of, and provide an appropriate setting for, surrounding developments;
iv) Be attractive, safe, uncluttered and appropriately lit;
v) Be of an appropriate scale;
vi) Connect to established pedestrian routes and other public spaces; and
vii) Minimise, and make provision for, maintenance requirements.
Draft policy DES5 states that tall buildings will be permitted where they meet a number of
criteria. Those criteria include that the scale of the development is appropriate to its context and
location; that the location is highly accessible to public transport, walking and cycling; that the
building would relate positively to and interact well with the adjacent public realm; that the
building would be of the highest quality design; that the building would make a positive addition
to the skyline and would not detract from important views and that there would be no
unacceptable impact on the setting of a listed building or on the character or appearance of a
conservation area. The reasoned justification for the policy goes on to say that tall buildings are
more likely to be appropriate within the mixed use areas identified on policy MX1
The architects for the scheme have sought to achieve a high quality of design and have made
amendments to this design. The City Council’s architectural consultant, Peter Hunter, considers
that the scheme is of the highest quality and that it represents a significant improvement on the
previously approved scheme.
High quality natural materials are proposed; glazed balconies, brick and stone on buildings 1 and
3 on each side of the Black Horse public house that will compliment the building and integrate
the development into existing buildings to the west of the site, zinc cladding to the roof and
terracotta on the main tower elevations. The use of render adjacent to Transport House
integrates the scheme with the existing building on this wider junction site. In addition to
reducing the heights of the two main towers the architects have introduced a zinc clad feature to
the roof that has the effect of lowering the apparent height of the towers.
The provision of the new public square is a particularly strong feature of the scheme. The space
has been designed well and opens up pedestrian routes to the south and is in keeping with much
of the street scene within the Crescent Conservation Area where the street frontage is punctuated
at regular intervals by side streets that break up the mass of the buildings along the frontage. The
new public space forms an integral part of the scheme and is of an appropriate scale being
framed by the two towers. I consider that it fully accords with draft policy DES3.
73
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The taller buildings on the site are appropriate to their context and location and respond well to
the new public space between them. The buildings are designed to a high standard and use high
quality materials. I consider that the proposed development accords with policy DES5.
Of crucial importance to the consideration of the scheme is the provision of the public square and
the likelihood that this is an alternative to a scheme that has approval and that can be
implemented. I am satisfied that the proposal represents a very significant improvement on the
previous approval and that the opportunity presented by this development should be
wholeheartedly welcomed as acknowledged by the URC in their comments on this application.
Impact on the Conservation Area/Listed Buildings
Draft Policy CH4 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would
have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.
Draft Policy CH5 states that development in conservation areas will only be permitted where it
would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and that in
determining this regard will be had to the extent to which the proposal meets a number of factors.
These factors include the retention of features that contribute to the character or appearance of
the conservation area, the standard of design, whether environmental improvements are secured
and whether it protects and improves views within, into and out of the conservation area.
The development accords with policy CH5. It retains the Black Horse public house and
successfully incorporates this old building into the development through sensitive design and use
of appropriate high quality materials. In providing new public space it secures environmental
improvements, especially compared with the previously approved scheme and in opening up the
site it significantly improves views within, into and out of the conservation area. The
development compliments existing buildings and approved schemes in the Chapel Street area
and within the regional centre. I do not consider the proposed building heights to be out of
keeping with the surrounding area when balanced with the significant improvements brought
about by other aspects of the proposed development. For the same reason I do not consider that
the development has an unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.
Effects of the development on neighbours
Draft Policy DES7 requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity. Development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the
occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
I have received objections from neighbouring owners and occupiers regarding the impact of the
proposed development on their businesses and future development opportunities. Given the city
centre location of the site and the nature of the development, it is not appropriate to apply the
interface standards that are used to guide development elsewhere within the city. Such concerns
74
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
must be considered against the benefits of the scheme, namely the redevelopment of an
underused and largely unattractive site, the provision of a mixture of uses, the provision of a new
public square and the construction of buildings which would enhance the area and which accord
fully with other Council policies. I am particularly mindful that the proposed development, in
providing this public square, actually enhances the potential and value of land to the south.
With regard to the relationship with the existing apartments in Transport House the proposed
development has been designed so that the impact on Transport House is less than that of the
approved scheme. There are no windows that face habitable room windows to the rear of
Transport House and a distance of 14m is maintained between the two developments.
In terms of privacy I consider the separation distances are acceptable. I am satisfied that the
proposed development does not have a detrimental effect on the commercial activity of any
neighbouring occupier.
I consider that the benefits of the scheme, namely the provision of high quality buildings which
would make a positive contribution to the surrounding area, and the removal from the site of a
number of unattractive and under-utilised sites and buildings outweigh concerns from objectors
relating to loss of privacy, loss of light and overlooking. I therefore have no objections to the
application in respect of residential amenity.
Highways, Parking and Public Transport
Policy A10, in line with Government guidance, seeks maximum parking standards for all
developments. Within the emerging planning framework and in line with central government
advice there is no policy requirement for a minimum level of parking.
The traffic impact assessment submitted by the applicant shows that the proposed development
would not have a material impact on the local highway network.
I have received an objection to the level of parking proposed that there is insufficient parking
provided for the proposed development.
The development provides 364 spaces for 507
apartments and I consider that the parking levels are in accordance with policy in this highly
accessible location and that the amount of parking proposed to be acceptable and would consider
a greater level of provision to be contrary to both good practice, government advice and planning
policy. In terms of highway safety I have no objections to the submitted scheme.
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.
The applicant has stated that with regard to sustainability the site is located in a highly accessible
location well served by public transport and that the development is fully accessible for the
75
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
disabled. The proposed layout ensures that predominantly apartments will have south, east or
west aspects. The site therefore maximises solar gain. The scheme will be energy, water and
natural resource efficient and the use of natural materials such as stone, zinc and terracotta that
do not adversely impact. Energy efficient lighting will be used throughout and water efficient
appliances and measures will be installed. As this application is in outline I propose to deal with
issues of sustainability through the imposition of a condition
Open Space Provision
The development provides a significant level of amenity space to the south of the site. 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 1293 bed spaces, which equates to a commuted sum value of £309,389. In
addition, in accordance with the Chapel Street SPG, a contribution of £1000 per apartment would
be generated by the development for environmental improvements. Draft policy CH9 states that
where appropriate, development adjacent to the canal will be required to contribute to its
restoration, improvement and/or maintenance. The design of the development accords with this
policy and it is envisaged that the financial contribution would be spent on a contribution
towards the restoration of the Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal, environmental improvements
to the surrounding area including the new public square, public art and improvements to
surrounding streets.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the policies H6, H11, H8, SPG7, and the Chapel Street SPG the applicant has
agreed to make a financial contribution towards children’s play space, open space or local
environmental improvements. A total of £816,389 would be contributed in this regard. The
applicant has agreed that the financial contribution would be used for the canal, maintenance of
the new public space, public art and environmental to the public realm beyond the site
boundaries. The applicant has also confirmed the use of sustainable building techniques.
CONCLUSION
The scheme is by locally based architects with a track record of designing high quality schemes
and it is considered that the development will contribute to the objectives in the URC’s vision for
Central Salford and will be a catalyst for future development along Oldfield Road. The density
of the development provides the critical mass to support the ground floor units and the pedestrian
footfall along the Crescent and Chapel Street, which would enhance the success and vitality of
the street. It successfully incorporates the Black Horse and retains a non-listed building. The
scheme will enhance the public realm through the creation of a high quality public square that
will link in with Hulme Street and facilitate linkages to these sites when they are developed in
the future. It is considered that the design of the building successfully mixes the old with the
new and the fact that the taller blocks are set back reduces their impact on the pedestrian
experience on the Crescent and Oldfield Road.
76
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
This application represents an opportunity for a significantly better scheme to be undertaken on a
site that is in a very important location in terms of the future success of the Central Salford draft
Vision and Regeneration Framework and the continued regeneration of the Chapel Street area.
The strong level of support offered by the URC is significant and this is amplified by the strong
support offered by Peter Hunter. I am satisfied that the proposed development would not only
enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area and act as a catalyst for future
successful development but that it would signify the City Councils intent to accept only the
highest quality of development.
I am satisfied that the amended design is acceptable and that the application would not have any
significant detrimental effect upon the amenity of neighbouring residents or on the surrounding
area in general. I am also satisfied that the level of on site parking is acceptable. I am satisfied
that the application complies with policies of the development plan as a whole.
The proposal is recommended for approval subject to the following conditions and that the
Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be authorised to enter into a legal
agreement to secure the provision of public open space in accordance with policies H6 and H11
of the adopted UDP and policy H8 of the draft UDP and SPG7.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition B01B New reserved matters
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted,
any existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk
positions, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. Standard Condition M08 Site Investigation - new
4. Prior to the commencement of development an assessment shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority that details the levels of internal noise
likely to be generated from the proposed use of the site including fixed plant and equipment
and the commercial uses. This assessment shall be used to identify and determine
appropriate noise mitigation measures (such as soundproofing) required to protect the
amenity of residential properties adjacent to and in the vicinity of the site. Any noise
77
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
mitigation measures identified by the assessment shall be implemented prior to the
development being brought into use and retained thereafter.
5. Prior to the commencement of development an air quality assessment shall be submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The report shall assess the existing
and future air quality for the years 2010, 2020 and opening year with and without the
development, for nitrogen dioxide and particles less than 10 microns. (The Design Manual
and Road Bridges (DMRB) will be acceptable for this study). The assessment should
identify the worst case exposure, changes in pollution concentration to residents of the
proposed development and identify any changes in pollution concentration to residents of the
proposed development e.g building facade and road junctions. The predicted levels should
be compared with the Air Quality Objectives set in the Air Quality Regulations 2000
(Amendment) Regulations 2002. The assessment shall detail mitigation measures required to
address the air quality issues identified. The approved mitigation measures shall be
implemented prior to first occupation of any of the units within Block A and retained
thereafter.
6. Prior to the commencement of any building works on site an assessment of noise likely to
affect the application site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The assessment should follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from
the surrounding road network including the A6, Oldfield Road, Adelphi Street, Hulme Street
and any other local noise sources that are deemed significant on the site. The assessment
shall identify all noise attenuation measures that 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 summer
cooling and rapid ventilation. If deemed necessary, alternative ventilation measures shall be
identified and incorportaed into the noise assessment report. Once agreed, all identified
noise control measures shall be implemented and retained thereafter.
7. Prior to the commencement of development a report assessing the effects of vibration on the
residential elements of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall identify the likely exposure to
future occupiers of the site and make comparisons against recommended guidelines.
Mitigation measures, if necessary, shall be identified and implemented in full prior to the
occupation of any dwelling.
8. Prior to the bringing into use of any A3, A4 or A5 units the details of the fume extraction
system serving the cooking and food preparation areas shall be designed such that there will
be no odour or noise nuisance to local residents and shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The approved system shall be installed and shall be
used at all times that the premises are used for cooking or preparing food. The system shall
be maintained and serviced in accordance with manufacturers recommendations.
78
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
9. 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 and H11 of the City of Salford
Adopted UDP, Policy H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP, SPG7 Provision
of Open Space and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development Salford
City Council Development Control Policy Note - The Use of Planning Obligations in the
Chapel Street Area will be paid to the Local Planning Authority for open space and
recreation space purposes and environmental improvements within the Chapel Street
Regeneration Strategy Area.
10. Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme for the provision of recycling
facilities within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any of the
residential units hereby approved.
11. No development shall commence until a scheme detailing how the development addresses
sustainability issues, including sustainable urban drainage systems, has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be
implemented in full prior to first occupation of any of the apartments, unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
12. Standard Condition F04D Retention of Parking Spaces
13. No development shall be commenced unless and until a lighting scheme has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented and thereafter retained prior to the first occupation of the development.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
4. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
5. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
6. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
79
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
7. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
9. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate open space and recreation space
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 and H11 of the City of Salford Adopted
UDP, Policy H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP and SPG7 Provision of
Open Space and Recreation Space Associated with New Residential Development and to
ensure the residential development provides appropriate environmental improvements within
the Chapel Street Area in accordance with Salford City Council Development Control Policy
Note - The Use of Planning Obligations in the Chapel Street Area.
10. In accordance with policy DEV1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan
11. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
12. Standard Reason R012A Parking only within curtilage
13. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. This development is subject to the planning obligation entered into by the applicant under
Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980.
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. Officers of the Environmental Directorate of Salford City Council may be contacted on 0161
737 0551 to discuss aspects of Air Quality, Contaminated land, Fume Extraction or Noise
conditions.
4. If any proposed A3, A4 or A5 use operates beyond 23.00 hours as indicated in the
application documents it will fall under the requirements of the new licensing regime. The
applicant is advised to contact the Licensing Team at the earliest opportunity to clarify what
licences or special conditions may apply under the Licensing Act. Contact the licensing
Team on 0161 793 3114 for further advice.
80
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
APPLICATION No:
05/51923/OUT
APPLICANT:
BFD Property Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
Eccles Royal British Legion Club Chadwick Road Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing buildings and outline planning application
for the siting and means of access of 37 apartments
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The Royal British Legion Club, an associated bowling green and a detached dwelling currently
occupy the application site.
The land to the north and south of the site is occupied by residential properties. Offices occupy
the land immediately to the west and the land to the east is a mix of residential and industrial
properties.
This application is for the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a part threestorey, part four-storey building comprising of 37 apartments. The applicant is seeking
permission for the siting and means of access to the site. All other matters are reserved.
The footprint of the proposed apartments follows the existing footprint of the Club and dwelling
house. The proposed block would form an L shape, which runs for 45.5m along Chadwick road
and 47m along Devonshire Road. The applicant states that 1 1-bed apartment, 32 2-bed
apartments, 3 3-bed apartments and a two-bedroom house would be provided. 37 car parking
spaces would be provided – 23 spaces would be provided at basement level, accessed off
Chadwick Road and 25 spaces at ground level, accessed off Devonshire Road.
SITE HISTORY
A previous application for the demolition of existing building and erection of a part 3 storey part
4 storey block to provide 32 apartments together with new vehicular access and associated car
parking and landscaping was withdrawn in January 2005 (Ref 04/49139/FUL).
81
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections to the principle of the development but
recommends conditions requiring site investigations and a noise assessment
Environment Agency – No objections
United Utilities – No objections
Railtrack – No objections
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections subject to a condition
requiring a lighting scheme
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 11th of January 2006.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
70 to 86 (even) Chadwick Road
Units 1 to 4, Delta Works, Chadwick Road
13 to 19 (odd) Gladstone Road
20 to 32 (even) Gladstone Road
25 to 35 (odd) Devonshire Road
20 to 32 (even) Devonshire Road
1, 2 and 3 A, B and C Hampden Grove
35, 39, 41,43 and 45 Chadwick Road
60 to 68 (even) Chadwick Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 3 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:Increased traffic and associated parking problems
Devaluation of property
Overlooking and loss of privacy
Devaluation of property is not a material planning consideration
82
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 - Location of New Development
H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
COMPOSITE WRITTEN STATEMENT TO SHOW PROPOSED PLAN MODIFICATIONS
H1 – Minor amendments proposed by the Inspector considered appropriate. Policy amended
accordingly but the thrust of policy remains unchanged.
DES1 - Minor amendments proposed by the Inspector considered appropriate. Policy amended
accordingly
DES7 – No changes to this policy.
DES11 – No changes to this policy
A10 - Minor amendments proposed by the Inspector considered appropriate. Policy amended
accordingly but the thrust of policy remains unchanged.
ST11 - Minor amendments proposed by the Inspector considered appropriate. Policy amended
accordingly but the thrust of policy remains unchanged.
83
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are:
Principle
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 ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse
and conversion of existing buildings been the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
Policy R1 states that the development of land used for recreational purposes will not be
permitted unless an equivalent replacement site is provided and laid out within the local area to
the satisfaction of the City Council.
Draft Policy R1 states that the development of land used for recreational purposes will not be
permitted unless it has been clearly demonstrated that the site is surplus to requirements or
adequate replacement provision, of equivalent or better accessibility, community benefit and
management is made elsewhere within the City.
The site is currently occupied by the Royal British Legion Club and associated Bowling Green.
The club was closed in January 2006, with the bowling green last being used in the summer of
2005. Part of the site is also occupied by a residential property. The site is therefore previously
developed and therefore its development is in accordance with Policy ST11.
I do not have any objections to the principle of residential development in this location as the
surrounding area is predominantly residential subject to the justification of the loss of an existing
recreational facility and/or an agreement to it replacement being reached.
In order to satisfy Policy R1 the applicant has submitted a supporting statement that justifies the
loss of the recreational facility. The statement describes how there are 9 active bowling greens
within the Eccles Community Committee area. There are no current standards on the number of
bowling greens that should be provided however the applicant uses figures from the former
Sports Council published in 1968 to work out how many bowling greens should be provided
within the Eccles Community Committee area to serve the population. These figures state that 1
bowling green should be provided for every 6000 people. There are 34,599 people in the
Community Committee area and therefore according to these figures 6 bowling greens should be
provided. The applicant therefore concludes that the Bowling Green on site is surplus to
requirements. I agree with this assertion. The statement goes on to describe how the site is
84
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
unusable for any other type of recreational activity due to its size and location in a predominantly
residential area. I also agree with this statement. I am therefore satisfied that subject to a £90,000
contribution towards recreational facilities in the vicinity of the site that the proposal complies
with Policy R1.
Amenity
Adopted Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard should be had in the
determination of planning applications. Of most relevance to this application are the location of
the proposed development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses and the
impact on neighbouring residents.
Policy DES7 states that development which would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity
of the occupiers or users of other developments will not normally be permitted.
The land to the west of the site is not used for residential purposes.
The proposed building would be located 1m from the boundary with 2a Hampden Grove.
Despite this I do not have any objections to this relationship, as proposed apartment block would
run along the same line and occupy the same footprint as the existing dwelling house at 38
Devonshire Road.
The residential amenity the other occupants of the properties at the rear of the site, on Hampden
Grove, would not be adversely affected by the proposal, as the proposed building would be
located 34.2m from the rear boundary with these properties.
I am therefore of the opinion that the proposed siting would not have an adverse impact upon
neighbouring residents.
Policy DES7 also requires all new developments to provide potential users with a satisfactory
level of amenity.
Future occupants of the proposed dwellings would be provided with a reasonable amount of
useable amenity space as a lawned area of 15.8m by 24.5m would be provided.
The proposal is therefore in accordance with policy DEV1 of the adopted UDP and policies
DES1 and DES7 of the revised UDP.
Access
85
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Adopted Policy T13 states that the Council will ensure that adequate parking and servicing is
provided to meet the needs of new development, in accordance with the Council’s standards.
Draft Policy A10 requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists
and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s maximum standards. It also states that the
maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded.
The proposed access and car parking layout are acceptable to highways and therefore I do not
have any objections to the proposed development on highway safety grounds.
Open Space
Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play
within new housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11, which sets out a sliding
scale for such provision.
Draft Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
In accordance with the above policies, the applicant is aware that a contribution towards the
provision and maintenance of open space in the vicinity is required. In accordance with the
recently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance I have attached a condition requiring such a
contribution. I am therefore satisfied that the application therefore accords with Adopted policies
H6 and H11 and Draft Policy H8.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for residential
purpose is acceptable. 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 that outweigh this finding. I therefore recommend that the application be
approved and that the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services e authorised to enter
into a planning obligation under Section 106 for the provision of open space, childrens play area
and a contribution of £90,000 towards local recreational facilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
86
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
1. Standard Condition A02 Outline
2. No development shall be started until full details of the following reserved matters have been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority:
- plans and elevations showing the design of all buildings and other structures;
- the colour and type of facing materials to be used for all external walls and roofs;
- a landscape scheme for the site which shall include details of trees and shrubs to be planted,
any existing trees to be retained, or felled indicating the spread of the branches and trunk
positions, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment.
3. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
4. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a noise assessment shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This assessment
should follow PPG24 guidelines towards assessing the noise from the surrounding road
network, the railway and any other local noise sources that are deemed significant. The
assessment shall identify all noise attenuation measures and alternative means of ventilation
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. Unless
agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all approved noise control and
ventilation measures shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any of the apartments
hereby approved and thereafter retained
5. 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.
6. 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 of £90,000 as required to satisfy Policy R1 of the City of
87
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Salford Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan will be paid to the Local Planning
Authority.
(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. 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 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
6. To ensure the residential development provides appropriate compensation for the loss of a
recreational facility in accordance with policy R1 of the City of Salford Revised Deposit
Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
Note(s) for Applicant
1. All disused access points shall be made good at the developers expense.
2. Any basement drainage must be pumped.
APPLICATION No:
06/51962/COU
APPLICANT:
M Afzal
LOCATION:
144 Cromwell Road Salford M6 6DE
88
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
PROPOSAL:
Change of use from shop to shop for the sale of hot food, erection
of single storey side/rear extension and external flue
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a shop on the corner of Cromwell Road and Rowsley Street in
Charlestown. The application is to change the use of the premises to a hot food take away with
the addition of a single storey extension and an external flue. The proposed extension would
project 5m from the rear of the property and accommodate a store area, disabled W.C and
garage. The flue would be located on the gable on Rowsley Street and would be 1m higher than
the ridge eight of the property. The property is an end terrace and is currently vacant. The
remainder of the terrace is predominantly residential, although 154 Cromwell Road is an off
licence and 146 is a hair salon with a first floor that was previously used as residential but is now
vacant. 136 to 142 Cromwell Road comprise a mixture of A1 uses. Properties on Rowsley
Street are residential. The proposed hours have been amended from 15:00 hours until 01:00
hours to 11:00 hours until 20:00 hours from Monday to Saturday only.
SITE HISTORY
There have previously been similar applications for this property:
95/34271/COU – was granted planning permission to change the shop into a hot food
take away.
02/44920/COU – the application to change into a hot food take away was refused
planning permission. The applicants appealed the decision, however the appeal was
dismissed.
03/47376/COU – the application to change into a hot food take away was refused
planning permission. The applicants appealed the decision and the appeal was upheld
subject to several conditions recommended by the Inspector. This permission has not
been implemented.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – no objections to the principle of the proposal. Conditions
requiring the submission and approval of a fume extraction system and restricting noise levels
have been recommended.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 10th January 2006.
89
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
136 to158a (E) Cromwell Road
4 to10 (E) Rowsley Street
13 –19 (O) Beeley Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received eight letters of objection in response to the planning application publicity, an
objection from the late Councillor Holt and a petition containing 56 names. The following issues
have been raised:
Noise and disturbance
Car parking/traffic problems
Attract anti-social youths
Increase in litter
Increase in smells
Already enough hot food outlets in the area
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
S5 – Control of Food and Drink Premises
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
S4 – Amusement Centres and Food and Drink Uses
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether there will be any impact on
the amenity of neighbouring residents by virtue of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes and litter
and whether there would be sufficient car parking.
Impact on Amenity
90
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Adopted Policy DEV1 outlines various factors to which regard should be had in the
determination of planning applications. Of most relevance to this application are the location of
the proposed development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses and the
likely scale of traffic generation.
Adopted Policy S5 states that proposals for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises
will not normally be granted unless the Council is satisfied there would not be an unacceptably
adverse impact on the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers by reason of noise,
disturbance, smells, fumes, litter, vehicular traffic movements, parking or pedestrian traffic.
Draft Policy S4 states that proposals for hot food shop uses would not be permitted by the
Council where the use would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of surrounding
residential occupiers by reason of noise, disturbance, smells, fumes, litter, vehicular traffic
movements, parking or pedestrian traffic and the vitality and viability of a town centre and visual
amenity.
The site is located on Cromwell Road, which is a relatively busy thoroughfare during the day and
in the evenings. I would therefore consider that this proposal would not result in a significant
increase in noise from customers visiting the premises either by car or on foot.
Objections have been raised with regards to smells and fumes that will result from the proposed
change of use to a hot food shop. A condition has been attached to address these concerns
requiring the installation of an extraction system to treat fumes and odours so as to render them
innocuous. The proposed elevations indicate that the proposed flue would be located on the
gable wall at the rear of the property, away from the nearest residential property at 146 Cromwell
Road.
An appeal decision from November 2004 allowed the change of use of 144 Cromwell Road from
a shop to a hot food shop on the condition the hours of opening shall be from 11:00 to 20:00
Monday to Saturday. The applicant confirmed they would operate within these hours and on
these days. I therefore do not consider there would be an unacceptable detrimental impact on the
amenity of the neighbouring residents in terms of noise and disturbance and am therefore
satisfied that the proposal is in accordance with these policies.
Car Parking
Adopted Policy T13 states that adequate and appropriate car parking and servicing provision
should be made where necessary to meet the needs of new development.
Draft Policy A10 requires new development to not exceed the maximum car parking standards as
set out in Appendix 3 of the UDP.
91
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
I do not believe that a hot food shop would generate significantly more traffic or demand for car
parking than a successful A1 use. I therefore have no objection to the proposal on highway
grounds.
The main custom would be passing trade, however, there are no parking restrictions outside 148
to 154/156 Cromwell Road or on Rowsley Street. I do not consider that on street parking on
either Cromwell Road or Rowsley Street would have a significantly detrimental impact on
residential amenity by way of noise and disturbance.
Other Issues
I have attached a condition requiring the provision of a bin outside the shop to accommodate any
increase in litter.
The shop is located along a busy main road which would deter any possible vandals, as there is
natural surveillance on the road. I do not consider it reasonable to assume that a hot food shop
would result in an increase of anti-social youths or vandalism to neighbouring premises.
The bedrooms above the proposed hot food shop would be ancillary to the premises to be for
staff use only.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I am satisfied the proposal to change the premises at 144 Cromwell Road into a
shop for the sale of hot food is acceptable. The use of the premises as a hot food takeaway has
been approved in principle by the appeal decision on application 03/47376/COU. The conditions
attached by the Planning Inspector would be included in any grant of consent. The residential
amenity of neighbours would not be adversely impacted by the proposal nor would an
unacceptable amount of traffic be created. I recommend the application to be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The development hereby approved shall not 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
92
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
attenuated and mounted to minimise the transmission of airbourne and structure bourne noise
and vibration. The works forming the approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance
with the approved scheme prior to the first use of the premises and thereafter the works
forming the approved scheme shall at all times remain in place.
3. Before the use commences a litter bin shall be provided in accordance with details of its
design and siting, to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be
maintained thereafter at all times.
4. The use hereby permitted shall operate between the hours and on the days specified below
and at no other time:
Monday to Saturday - 11:00 hours to 20:00 hours and not at all on Sundays or Bank
Holidays
5. 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 Local Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R027A Amenity and quietude
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
APPLICATION No:
06/51970/FUL
APPLICANT:
William Sutton Housing Association
LOCATION:
Land At Tanners Green Seedley Road Salford 6
PROPOSAL:
Erection of two and three storey buildings comprising 18
dwellings and eight apartments together with associated car
parking and construction of new, and alteration to existing,
vehicular and pedestrian accesses
93
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
WARD:
6th April 2006
Langworthy
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to a plot of land bounded by Doveridge Gardens, Seedley Road and
Nursery Street in Salford 6. Part of the site is currently vacant with the rest being occupied by a
vacant three-storey block of flats and a disused playground area.
The site is bounded on three sides by residential properties. A school and an office block occupy
the land to the south of the site.
Planning permission is sought for the erection of 4 two-bedroom houses, 10 three-bedroom
houses, 4 four-bedroom houses, together with the erection of 8 two-bedroom flats.
The majority of the development would form an L shape running for 82m along Seedley Road
before turning to run for a further 46m along Nursery Street. The properties that would make up
the L vary in height ranging from 8.1m at the ridge to 11.8m. To the rear of this L would be the
proposed play area, separated from the properties by the proposed access road. In addition to this
main strip of development two further pairs of properties would be provided on the western
boundary of the site, adjacent to Doveridge Gardens. Both pairs of semis would be 4.8m to the
eaves and 8.1m to the ridge.
In total 32 parking spaces would be provided on site. Each of the dwellings would be provided
with a private car parking space, with the larger 4 bedroom properties having two car parking
spaces per unit. An area of communal parking containing 10 spaces, one of which is suitable for
use by disabled persons, would be provided for occupants of the proposed apartments.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency – No objections
United Utilities – No objections in principle
Head of Engineers – No objections
Head of Environmental Services –No objections providing a number of conditions are attached
relating to ground contamination.
Architectural Liaison Officer – No objections subject to conditions re –lighting and access to
communal areas
GMPTE – No objections
Ramblers Association – No objections
Open Space Socity – No comments to date
Greater Manchester Pedestrain Association – No comments to date
Peak and Northern Footpaths Association – No comments to date
94
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 18th of January 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 21 (odd) Doveridge Gardens
20 to 38 (even) Doveridge Gardens
William Sutton Trust Community Centre, Doveridge Gardens
1 to 10 Nursery Street
1 to 5 (odd) Mitcheson Gardens
1, 2, 11,12, 21 and 22 Church Green
1 to 4, 11 to 14 and 21 to 24 Pendleton Green
St James House
The presbytery, Pendleton Way
St James RC Primary School, Colwyn Street
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: none
Other policies: DP3 Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: H1 – Provision of New Housing Development
DES1 – Respecting Context
95
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours
DES11 – Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
ST11 - Location of New Development
H8 - Open Space Provision Within New Housing Development
COMPOSITE WRITTEN STATEMENT TO SHOW PROPOSED PLAN MODIFICATIONS
H1 – Minor amendments proposed by the Inspector considered appropriate. Policy amended
accordingly but the thrust of policy remains unchanged.
DES1 - Minor amendments proposed by the Inspector considered appropriate. Policy amended
accordingly
DES7 – No changes to this policy.
DES11 – No changes to this policy
A10 - Minor amendments proposed by the Inspector considered appropriate. Policy amended
accordingly but the thrust of policy remains unchanged.
ST11 - Minor amendments proposed by the Inspector considered appropriate. Policy amended
accordingly but the thrust of policy remains unchanged.
H8 - Minor amendments proposed by the Inspector considered appropriate. Policy amended
accordingly but the thrust of policy remains unchanged.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of the proposed
development is acceptable; whether the design of the proposed buildings is acceptable; whether
there would be a detrimental impact on residential amenity; whether the proposed level of
parking is acceptable; and whether the proposal complies with the relevant policies of the
Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Unitary Development Plans. I shall deal with
each of these issues in turn.
Principle of DevelopmentAdopted 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.
96
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Draft Policy H1 states that new housing development should contribute to the provision of a
balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.
Draft Policy ST11 advocates a sequential approach to development with sites involving the reuse
and conversion of existing buildings being the preferred location of development, followed by
previously developed land with Greenfield sites last.
Policy R1 states that the development of land used for recreational purposes will not be
permitted unless an equivalent replacement site is provided and laid out within the local area to
the satisfaction of the City Council.
Draft Policy R1 states that the development of land used for recreational purposes will not be
permitted unless it has been clearly demonstrated that the site is surplus to requirements or
adequate replacement provision, of equivalent or better accessibility, community benefit and
management is made elsewhere within the City.
National Policy contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note number 3: Housing highlights
the need to develop previously developed Brownfield sites.
The application site is a Brownfield site, which has been previously developed for recreational
and residential purposes. This previous use, in combination with the fact that the predominant
land use in the vicinity of the site is for residential purposes and the fact that the proposal would
provide a mix of housing types and provide much needed supported housing, means that the
principle of residential development on the site is acceptable subject to justification of the loss of
an existing recreational facility.
The applicant has provided a supporting statement, which justifies the loss of the 308sq.m hard
surfaced recreational area. They describe how it was used by the local football team for practice
but since the team disbanded in 1998 it has been under used and as a result it has been subject to
repeated attacks of vandalism. I do not therefore have any objections to the loss of the
recreational facility, particularly as the site has not been identified in the Greenspace Strategy as
a priority for meeting recreational standards in the Ordsall and Langworthy Community
Committee Area. However owing to limited provision of outdoor recreational provision in the
Ordsall and Langworthy Community Committee Area the facility cannot be said to be fully
surplus to recreational requirements and therefore replacement provision should be sought. As
part of the proposal a 250m2 equipped play area would be provided on site. While the area is
smaller than that previously provided it is of a higher quality as a result of the fact that it would
be equipped. It has therefore been agreed that the proposed play area can be classed as a
replacement recreational facility.
The proposed development is therefore in accordance with Polices H1 and R1 of the adopted
UDP and Polices H1, ST11 and R1 and revised UDP,
97
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Design
Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the
Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.
Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials.
The design, scale and massing of the proposed dwellings and apartments mirrors that of other
properties on the William Sutton Estate and respects and reflects that of the other properties
surrounding area, which are a mix of 2 and 3 storeys in height and therefore the proposed
development would gel well with its surroundings. Samples of materials have been submitted
with the application. The materials that would be used are the same that have been used on the
previous phases of development on the estate therefore ensuring that the various components of
the estate would appear as one complete development as opposed to a series of separate ventures,
something that would, in my opinion, have appositive impact upon the visual amenity of the area.
Overall, I am of the opinion that the proposed development would have a positive impact upon
the visual amenity of the area as the buildings and spaces around the buildings will add value and
quality to the built environment in accordance with policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the adopted
UDP and policies DES1 and DES2 of the revised UDP.
Amenity of Users and Neighbours
Adopted Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard should be had in the
determination of planning applications. Of most relevance to this application are the location of
the proposed development, including its relationship to existing and proposed land uses, the size
and density of the proposed development and the impact on neighbouring residents.
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.
The proposed development would not have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity the
occupants of the properties on Doveridge gardens currently enjoy as facing habitable room
window-to-window separation distances of in excess of 21m would be maintained.
Similarly, the relationship of the proposed buildings and the residential properties on Maple
Close and Pendleton Green is such that the occupants of these properties would not experience a
reduction in the level of residential amenity they currently enjoy should the development be
98
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
permitted as there would not be any facing habitable room windows, as the properties at Maple
Close and Pendleton Green have a blank gable ends fronting onto the proposed development site.
The occupants of the properties on Nursery Street would not experience a reduction in the level
of residential amenity they can reasonably expect to enjoy either as the relationship between the
proposed dwellings and these properties would be the same as the relationship between these
dwellings and the existing three-storey block of flats on Tanners Green. The level of overlooking
the residents of these properties would experience would therefore remain unchanged. The
proposed development could in fact improve the living conditions for the occupants of the
properties on Nursery Street, as the properties directly opposite would be two storeys instead of
three storeys.
Each of the proposed dwellings would have a rear garden and there would be an area of
communal open space provided for occupants of the proposed apartment block. I am therefore
satisfied that future occupants of the proposed dwellings and apartments would be provided with
a reasonable amount of useable amenity space.
In order to improve security on the site I have, at the Police Architectural Liaison Officers
request, placed a condition on the permission that requires a lighting scheme.
As mentioned previously it is proposed to provide an onsite equipped play area in order to satisfy
the requirements of Policy R1 of the adopted UDP and Policy R1 of the revised UDP and to part
satisfy the requirements of Policies H6 and H11 of the Adopted UDP. In order to minimise
potential noise nuisance from play areas a 30m separation is normally required between a
proposed play area and the boundary of any noise sensitive properties. At its closest the
proposed play area would be located 6.5m from the boundary of the proposed dwellings.
Consultation has been undertaken with colleagues in Environmental Health and while concerns
have been raised about the relationship between the proposed play area and the residential
properties on and surrounding the site and the potential the play area has to create nuisance as a
result of children playing and/or youths gathering they have not objected to the proposals.
Existing residents on the estate have raised no such concerns about the inclusion of a play area
within the development. Prior to the submission of planning application significant public
consultation was undertaken. An open day was held on the 20th of September 2005 and residents,
local Councillors and New Prospect Housing were invited to attend. Any comments made fed
into the design process. William Sutton did not receive any objections the inclusion of the
proposed play area with residents welcoming the inclusion of a play area that would function in a
similar way to the existing play areas on the estate which are fenced with railings and controlled
by an appointed resident to ensure that play is monitored and access to the site restricted thus
preventing youths gathering and reducing the chances of vandalism occurring.
99
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The absence of a formal objection from colleagues in Environmental Health and members of the
public, in combination with the regeneration benefits the proposed scheme would offer by
clearing up and bring back into use a vacant site, by allowing the clearance of housing stock that
is in a poor state of repair while allowing for residents to be relocated together thus maintaining a
“community” as well as providing much needed additional supported housing within the City
means that subject to the imposition of a condition that requires a scheme for acoustic fencing to
be submitted as part of a landscaping condition, I do not have any objections to the relationship
between the proposed play area and the residential properties, both existing and proposed.
Overall, I would not consider the proposal to have a detrimental impact on the privacy or outlook
of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings or the future occupants of the proposal and therefore
the proposed development is in accordance with Adopted Policy DEV 1 and Draft Policy DES 7.
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.
In total 32 parking spaces would be provided on site. Each of the dwellings would be provided
with a private car parking space, with the larger 4 bedroom properties having two car parking
spaces per unit. An area of communal parking containing 10 spaces, one of which is suitable for
use by disabled persons, would be provided for occupants of the proposed apartments. I am of
the opinion that this level of car parking is adequate and as it is laid out to a satisfactory standard
I do not have any objections to the proposal on highway safety grounds.
Bar provision for the two pairs of semis on the Doveridge Gardens side of the site the majority of
the proposed car parking would be provided to the rear of the proposed properties. Access to the
proposed car parking associated with the dwellings would however be gated. Surveillance of the
communal area would be high, due to the presence of habitable room windows in the rear
elevation of the proposed dwellings and apartments that over look the parking areas. I do not
therefore have any issues with the proposed parking layout from a design and crime perspective.
Open Space
Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play
within new housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11, which sets out a sliding
scale for such provision.
100
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Draft Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
96 bed spaces would be provided as part of this development. According to the SPG on the
provision of open space and recreation space associated with new residential development
576m2 of open space should be provided on site, which should be divided up so that 192m2 of
formal equipped play space is provided and 384m2 of informal open space is provided.
The 250sq.m onsite play area satisfies the requirement for formal open space. The applicant
intends to manage the play area themselves and therefore the need for a financial contribution for
10 year maintenance is removed however a formal management arrangement needs to be set up,
something that can be done as part of a Section 106 Agreement.
The development does not however contain any informal open space and therefore a contribution
of _8640 is required to provide the informal open space off site and maintain it for a 10-year
period. The applicant is aware that this contribution is required. I have attached a condition
requiring such a contribution.
I am therefore satisfied that the application therefore accords with Adopted policies H6 and H11
and Draft Policy H8.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, I consider the principle of the proposed development to be acceptable, that the
scheme proposes an improved street scene and would contribute to the provision of a mix of
dwelling types in the area. I am satisfied that the amenity of existing or future residents would
not be unacceptably detrimentally affected as a result of this scheme. Consequently, I am
satisfied that the application accords with the relevant policies of the Adopted and Revised
Deposit Draft Replacement UDPs. I therefore recommend that the application be approved and
that the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be authorised to enter into a
planning obligation under S106 to provide _8640 for off site open space and for the management
of the on-site play area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. The site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme which shall be submitted to
101
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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.
3. Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings and apartments hereby permitted the 32 car
parking spaces shown on Drawing No 99 shall be provided within the curtilage of the site to
the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and such spaces shall be made available at
all times the premises are in use.
4. Standard Condition J04X Bin Stores
5. 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 250sq.m equipped play area will be laid out on site and maintained under a
management agreement as well as providing 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 informal open space and recreation space purposes.
6. No development shall be commenced unless and until a lighting scheme has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be
implemented and thereafter retained prior to the first occupation of the development.
7. 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 Local
Planning Authority.
8. Standard Condition M05 Site investigation
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
102
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. 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 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
6. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
Note(s) for Applicant
1. In order to satisfy condition 2 the fencing to the rear elevation of all the proposed dwellings
and apartments shall be acoustic fencing.
2. The site shall be laid out in accordance with the amended site plan recieved on the 14th of
Match 2006.
APPLICATION No:
06/52008/LBC
APPLICANT:
The FRASC Group
LOCATION:
Orchard House 318 Ellenbrook Road Worsley M28 1EB
PROPOSAL:
Listed Building Consent for the erection of a first floor extension
above existing single storey building, alterations to elevations
and change of use to 27 apartments together with associated car
parking and bin store
WARD:
Boothstown And Ellenbrook
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Mines Rescue Station on Ellenbrook Road and seeks listed
building consent to convert the building to provide 27 apartments and 28 car parking spaces
103
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
which would be located mainly in front of the building, although 9 of these spaces would
accessed directly off Orchard Avenue. The conversion would include the erection of three first
floor extensions to rear of the building. The existing facade fronting Ellenbrook Road would
remain unchanged.
The site is within the Mines Rescue Conservation Area. Development restrictions are also
imposed on the whole of the Conservation Area by way of an Article 4 directive. The article 4
directive removes Permitted Development rights regarding driveway, means of enclosure, doors
and windows from the residential properties within the conservation area. The purpose of the
directive is to retain the special architectural and historic character of the conservation area.
The building is currently occupied by an industrial use. Ancillary offices are located at ground
floor behind the former emergency vehicular access doors. Two apartments are also located at
first floor level within the main frontage of the building.
This proposal seeks to convert the existing building to provide apartments. The proposal also
include rear extensions at first floor level to further facilitate the development of the building to
accommodate 27 apartments. There would be a mix of apartments including 6 three bedroom
apartments and 21 two bed apartments. Three apartments would be duplex apartments which
would be located to the rear of the original emergency access doors. These doors would be
retained. A total of 4 entrance points would be provided, 2 from the Orchard Road elevation and
2 on the opposite southern elevation. Amenity space is proposed to the rear of the site. The area
fronting Orchard Avenue which currently provides additional car parking would landscaped.
An associated full application 06/52015/FUL also appears on this agenda for a decision.
SITE HISTORY
In 1995, planning permission was approved for change of use to Hat Manufacturers with
residential (95/33943/COU). The associated listed building application was also approved
(95/33944/LBC)
In 1997, planning permission was granted to brick up front and rear garage openings creating
window openings at first floor level (front and rear) and doorways at rear ground floor level only
(97/36246/FUL). At the same time listed building consent was granted for the construction of a
mezzanine floor. (97/36245/LBC)
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the change of use of part of first floor offices to a
self contained flat together with associated landscaping (00/41187/COU). The associated listed
building application was also approved. This consent allowed for internal alterations and
creation of flat at first floor (00/41186/LBC)
104
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
A similar scheme (and listed building application) to this current proposal was withdrawn prior
to consideration last year - Erection of part first floor and part second floor extensions above
existing single storey building, alterations to the elevations and change of use to 31 apartments,
together with associated car parking and bin store (05/50987/FUL and 05/50992/LBC)
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to the attachment of condition
relating to site investigation.
Environment Agency – no objection in principle subject to drainage condition
United Utilities – no objection in principle
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Raises concerns regarding the number of entrance points
to the building and the lack of defensible space.
Worsley Civic Trust – no response
Worsley and Boothstown Residents Association – no response
English Heritage – Offer no comment on the application
PUBLICITY
The site has been advertised by way of press and site notice.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 22 (con), 24 – 52 (even) Orchard Avenue
39 – 57 (odd), 308, 310 and 320 Ellenbrook Road
10 Wyre Drive
1 – 5 (con) Miners Mews
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a number of letters of objection from four neighbouring residents in response to
the application publicity. The following issues have been raised:
Impact of additional vehicles
Bats
Overlooking
Loss of privacy
105
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Amount of development already in area
Amount of flats in area
Shadows effect upon
Access to property
Character of the area
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
EN11- Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, EN12 Protection and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
DRAFT REPLACEMENT UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: Conservation Area
Other policies:
CH 4 - Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building, CH5 Works within Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the development would have
any negative impact upon the listed building, 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.
Impact upon the Conservation Area
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 have the
need to encourage high standards of development which are in keeping with the character of the
area.
Revised replacement policy CH5 states that development in Conservation Areas will only be
permitted where it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation
Area.
I consider that the proposal can be assessed in two parts; firstly the alterations to the area within
the curtilage of the building and secondly the visual appearance of the proposed extensions. The
106
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
area in front of the building has changed little since the building was constructed. It currently
provides access and car parking. This proposal would retain the external appearance of the
building which fronts Ellenbrook Road. No alterations are proposed to this elevation. Whilst the
existing flower bed would be reduced to facilitate this scheme, the area in front of the building
would continue to provide car parking. As such I do not consider that the character of the
conservation would be unduly affected by the proposal in this area. Moreover, I have attached a
condition requiring the area to be formally marked out utilising appropriate materials which
would further enhance the appearance of the conservation area.
The southern elevation and private amenity space have limited visibility from inside and outside
of the Conservation Area. The recently approved ‘Miners Mews’ would be the main area from
which this elevation could be viewed.
The rear elevation currently comprised of a 5.1m high wall. A new ‘traditional’ style roof is
proposal at this point and would include a ridge which would return towards the two story front
section. Given that this section is set in from each of the outer elevations it would not result in a
significant feature from Orchard Avenue. The applicant has provided a street scene perspective
looking east along Orchard Avenue toward Ellenbrook Road.
The element that would be most visible to the conservation area is the first floor extension to the
rear of the building which front Orchard Avenue. The design incorporates a palette of modern
materials including zinc standing seam roofing system and grey eternit cladding. Whilst the
proposed windows do not seek to replicate the Georgian sash windows which is evident
elsewhere in the building they would be timber and be in similar positions to the existing
windows at ground floor. Given the building’s historical references and design I consider it
appropriate that the proposed extension is clearly defined as ‘new’ and should not seek to replace
it, however, it is necessary that the extensions are appropriate. The area in front of this elevation
is currently used for car parking. The proposal would provide a landscaped area and a boundary
wall. I have spoken to the applicant regarding this wall and they are happy to provide a
boundary wall similar to that on the opposite site of the road.
The impact and design of the extension upon the listed building is discussed later in this report.
Whilst the Council’s Conservation officer has raised some concerns over the proposed cladding,
he has not provided any objection to the proposed conversion.
Whilst the building is within a conservation area the policies highlighted above do not
automatically preclude the use of modern materials. I consider that the proposed zinc roofing
system would help define what is ‘new’ and allows for a shallow pitch construction which
ensures that the massing is minimised. The applicant has also provided a sample of the proposed
Eternit cladding. However, I am of the opinion that this material is not suitable within this
conservation area and have attached a condition requiring samples to be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority.
107
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
In considering all aspects of the proposal as discussed above, and with appropriate conditions
requiring samples of external materials, landscaping scheme, car parking layout and details of
colour treatment for the windows, I am satisfied that the proposal would make a positive
contribution to the character of this conservation area. As such I am satisfied that the proposal
accords with the policies highlighted above.
Effect on the Mines Rescue Listed Building
Adopted policy EN12 states that the Council will not normally permit any development that
would be detrimental to the setting of a Listed Building or the environmental quality of the
surrounding area.
Revised replacement policy CH4 states that planning permission will only be granted for
development that would not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any Listed Building or
would detract from the architectural and historic character of a listed building.
The Council’s Conservation officer is of the opinion that the extensions are appropriate. As
stated earlier, I do not consider that the proposed cladding is appropriate in this instance, I do
consider that a modern design which includes modern materials helps define the original listed
building and additions. Internally, and with the assistance of the Council’s Conservation officer,
many of the original internal walls are to be reinstated. The original features which help define
the buildings historic contribution are also to be retained such as the original emergency doors
and light wells.
The Council’s Conservation officer advises that the building is currently suffering from water
damage. Whilst the future of this listed building is not at present under threat and is not a reason
stated by the applicant in support of the scheme, I am mindful that an appropriate and sensitive
scheme will ensure the long term future of this grade II listed building. Moreover, advice
contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and Historic Environment advised that
consideration should be given to appropriate conversions.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the scheme accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding the listed building.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The scheme has been reduced in scale and massing and the number of units reduced from the
previous scheme which was withdrawn from consideration.
The applicant has entered into several pre-applications discussions with myself, the Council’s
conservation area and listed building officer and English Heritage.
108
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
CONCLUSION
I consider that the amendments made to the scale and massing of the proposal are more in
keeping with the surrounding residential context. I am satisfied that the design is of appropriate
quality to ensure that the character of the conservation area is retained and the future of this
listed building is given greater security.
I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring
residents and that it fully accords with the policies contained within the development plan. I do
not consider that there are any material considerations that outweigh this view.
Therefore, I recommend that this proposal be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R038 Section 18
APPLICATION No:
06/52015/FUL
APPLICANT:
The FRASC Group
LOCATION:
Orchard House 318 Ellenbrook Road Worsley
109
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
PROPOSAL:
Erection of first floor extension above existing single storey
building, alterations to elevations and change of use to 27
apartments together with associated car parking and bin store
WARD:
Boothstown And Ellenbrook
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to the former Mines Rescue Station on Ellenbrook Road and seeks
consent to convert the building to provide 27 apartments and 28 car parking spaces which would
be located mainly in front of the building although 9 of the spaces would accessed directly off
Orchard Avenue. The conversion would include the erection of effectively three first floor
extensions to rear of the building. The existing faēade fronting Ellenbrook Road would remain
unchanged.
The site is within the Mines Rescue Conservation Area. Development restrictions are also
imposed on the whole of the conservation area by way of an Article 4 directive. The article 4
directive removes Permitted Development rights regarding driveway, means of enclosure, doors
and windows from the residential properties within the conservation area. The purpose of the
directive is to retain the special architectural and historic character of the conservation area.
The building is currently occupied by an industrial use. Ancillary offices are located at ground
floor behind the former emergency vehicular access doors. Two apartments are also located at
first floor level within the main frontage of the building.
This proposal seeks to convert the existing building to provide apartments. The proposal also
include rear extensions at first floor level to further facilitate the development of the building to
accommodate 27 apartments. There would be a mix of apartments including six - three bedroom
apartments and 21 - two bed apartments. Three apartments would be duplex apartments which
would be located to the rear of the original emergency access doors. These doors would be
retained. A total of 4 entrance points would be provided, 2 from the Orchard Road elevation and
2 on the opposite southern elevation. Amenity space is proposed to the rear of the site. The area
fronting Orchard Avenue which currently provides additional car parking would landscaped.
An associated application for Listed Building Consent 06/52008/LBC also appears on this
agenda for a decision.
SITE HISTORY
In 1995, planning permission was approved for change of use to Hat Manufacturers with
residential (95/33943/COU). The associated listed building application was also approved
(95/33944/LBC)
110
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
In 1997, planning permission was granted to brick up front and rear garage openings creating
window openings at first floor level (front and rear) and doorways at rear ground floor level only
(97/36246/FUL). At the same time listed building consent was granted for the construction of a
mezzanine floor (97/36245/LBC)
In 2000, planning permission was granted for the change of use of part of first floor offices to a
self contained flat together with associated landscaping (00/41187/COU). The associated listed
building application was also approved. This consent allowed for internal alterations and
creation of flat at first floor (00/41186/LBC)
A similar scheme (and listed building application) to this current proposal was withdrawn prior
to consideration last year - Erection of part first floor and part second floor extensions above
existing single storey building, alterations to the elevations and change of use to 31 apartments,
together with associated car parking and bin store (05/50987/FUL and 05/50992/LBC)
CONSULTATIONS
The Director of Environmental Services – No objection subject to the attachment of condition
relating to site investigation.
Environment Agency – no objection in principle subject to drainage condition
United Utilities – no objection in principle
Police Architectural Liaison Officer – Raises concerns regarding the number of entrance points
to the building and the lack of defensible space.
Worsley Civic Trust – no response
Worsley and Boothstown Residents Association – no response
English Heritage – Offer no comment on the application
PUBLICITY
The site has been advertised by way of press and site notice.
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 – 22 (con), 24 – 52 (even) Orchard Avenue
39 – 57 (odd), 308, 310 and 320 Ellenbrook Road
10 Wyre Drive
111
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
1 – 5 (con) Miners Mews
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received a number of letters of objection from four neighbouring residents in response to
the application publicity. The following issues have been raised:
Impact of additional vehicles
Bats
Overlooking
Loss of privacy
Amount of development already in area
Amount of flats in area
Shadows effect upon
Access to property
Character of the area
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
H1 – Meeting Housing Needs, H6 – Open Space Provision within New
Housing Developments, H11 – Open Space Provision within New Housing
Developments, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 – Good Design,
DEV4 – Design and Crime, T13 – Car Parking, Con Area, EN11Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, EN12 - Protection
and Enhancement of Listed Buildings
DRAFT REPLACEMENT UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: Conservation Area
Other policies:
H1 – Provision of New Housing Development, H8 – Open Space
Provision Associated With New Housing Developments, DES1 –
Respecting Context, DES11 – Design and Crime, A10 – Provision of Car,
Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Development, CH 4 - Development
Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building, CH5 - Works within
Conservation Areas
PLANNING APPRAISAL
112
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The main planning issues relating to this application are: whether the principle of residential
development in this location is acceptable; whether the development would have any negative
impact upon the listed building, whether the development would have any negative impact upon
the conservation 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
The application involves the conversion of the existing building which was used primarily for
light industrial purposes by hat makers and now by a mechanical services company as a store. As
proposed for modification by the Council following consideration of the Inspectors
recommendations into the Revised Deposit UDP, policy ST11 states that sites for development
will be brought forward in the following order; reuse and conversion of existing buildings;
previously developed land in accessible locations; previously developed land in less accessible
locations; and lastly previously undeveloped land. Policy ST11 of the UDP accords with policy
DP1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy. The conversion of the building would accord with the
highest priority for bringing forward sites, and represents an efficient recycling of the existing
building. Additionally the reuse of the building itself is appropriate, especially given that it is in a
sound condition and of architectural interest. Therefore, in terms of accordance with the
sequential approach as defined in policy ST11 the proposal is acceptable in principle.
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 Inspector has recommended a number of amendments to this policy including the deletion of
some of the criteria but that density of 30 dwellings per hectare should be sought.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to
develop previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be
considered. PPG3 also states that, when considering conversions, a more flexible approach is
required with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking.
Given that the proposal seeks to convert an existing building I would consider that the proposal
should be considered against criteria 1 of revised policy ST11 as a site which should be
developed in preference to other ‘brown and ‘green’ field development sites, as such, I consider
the sequentially, the principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential accommodation to
be acceptable and accords with the thrust of the policies highlighted above. Moreover, I consider
113
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
that the mixture of apartment types (as outlined above) is sufficient to provide a balanced mix in
accordance with adopted and replacement policies H1.
However, this has to be balanced against the impact upon the listed building, conservation area
and other material planning considerations.
Loss of Employment
As the site is currently in use for employment purposes, the Council need to consider the
potential loss of the employment use on the site. Policy EC3 of the Adopted UDP states that
where existing industrial and non-retail commercial sites become vacant the Council will seek to
re-use or redevelop them for similar or related uses. Redevelopment for other uses will only be
permitted where: the site could be used for other purposes without a resulting material or
unacceptable shortfall in the range of employment sites; alternative employment generating
development such as tourism/leisure uses would be appropriate; or there is a strong case for
rationalizing land uses or creating open space. Given the size of the site I do not consider that the
loss of this site would result in a material or unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites and / or
premises available for economic development. Additionally as the site is surrounded by
residential properties, the conversion of the building would represent a rationalisation of uses that
would improve the amenity of nearby residents.
Policy E5 of the Revised Deposit Plan sets out criteria for when planning permission will be
granted for the reuse or redevelopment of sites or buildings within an established employment
area for non-employment uses. The policy states that planning permission will only be granted
where the development would not compromise the operating conditions of other related
employment uses, and where one or more of the following apply:
The developer can demonstrate there is no current or likely future demand for the site for
employment purposes; or
There is a strong case for rationalizing land uses or create open space; or
The development would contribute to the implementation of an approved regeneration
strategy or plan for the area; or
The site is allocated for another use in the UDP.
Following consideration of the Inspector recommendations into the Revised Deposit UDP, the
Council has proposed to amend the reasoned justification to the policy so that employment areas
are now defined. MOD319 states that for the purposes of policy E5, an established employment
area is defined as site(s)/building(s) that are currently used, or were vacant where last used for
non-retail employment uses, and fall within one of the following categories:
Any area with five or more adjacent business units;
Any continuos site area of 0.5ha or greater; or
Any buildings with a floor area of 5,000 square metres or greater.
114
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Using the definition the application site could not be classed as being an established employment
area. The site is an isolated employment use in a predominantly residential area, does not have a
site area of more than 0.5ha, nor does the building have a floor area of 5,000 square metres or
greater. As a result I do not consider that the loss of this employment would result in a material
shortfall across the city and is therefore accord with the thrust of policy E5.
Impact upon the Conservation Area
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 have the
need to encourage high standards of development which are in keeping with the character of the
area.
Revised replacement policy CH5 states that development in Conservation Areas will only be
permitted where it would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation
Area.
I consider that the proposal can be assessed in two parts; firstly the alterations to the area within
the curtilage of the building and secondly the visual appearance of the proposed extensions. The
area in front of the building has changed little since the building was constructed. It currently
provides access and car parking. This proposal would retain the external appearance of the
building which fronts Ellenbrook Road. No alterations are proposed to this elevation. Whilst the
existing flower bed would be reduced to facilitate this scheme, the area in front of the building
would continue to provide car parking. As such I do not consider that the character of the
conservation would be unduly affected by the proposal in this area. Moreover, I have attached a
condition requiring the area to be formally marked out utilising appropriate materials which
would further enhance the appearance of the conservation area.
The southern elevation and private amenity space have limited visibility from inside and outside
of the conservation. The recently approved ‘Miners Mews’ would be the main area from which
this elevation could be viewed. The Council’s minimum separation distance is retained in this
area and is discussed later in this report.
The rear elevation currently comprised of a 5.1m high wall. A new ‘traditional’ style roof is
proposal at this point and would include a ridge which would return towards the two story
existing building. Given that this section is set in from each of the outer elevations it would not
result in a significant feature from Orchard Avenue. The potential impact of this extension is
dicussed later in this report. The applicant has provided a street scene perspective looking east
along Orchard Avenue toward Ellenbrook Road.
The element that would be most visible to the conservation area is the first floor extension to the
rear of the building which front Orchard Avenue. The design incorporates a palette of modern
115
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
materials including zinc standing seam roofing system and grey Eternit cladding. Whilst the
proposed windows do not seek to replicate the Georgian sash which is evident elsewhere in the
building they would be timber and be in similar positions to the existing windows at ground
floor. Given the buildings historical references and design I consider it appropriate that the
proposed extension is clearly defined as ‘new’ and should not seek to replace it, however, it is
necessary that the extensions are appropriate. The area in front of this elevation is currently used
for car parking. The proposal would provide a landscaped area and a boundary wall. I have
spoken to the applicant regarding this wall and they are happy to provide a boundary wall similar
to that on the opposite site of the road.
The impact and design of the extension upon the listed building is discussed later in this report.
Whilst the Council’s Conservation officer has raised some concerns over the proposed cladding,
he has not provided any objection to the proposed conversion.
Whilst the building is within a conservation area the policies highlighted above do not
automatically preclude the use of modern materials. I consider that the proposed materials would
help define what is ‘new’ and allows for a shallow pitch construction which ensures that the
massing is minimised. The applicant has also provided a sample of the proposed cladding.
However, I am of the opinion that this material is not suitable within this conservation area and
have attached a condition requiring samples to be submitted to and approved by the Local
Planning Authority.
In considering all aspects of the proposal as discussed above, and with appropriate conditions
requiring samples of external materials, landscaping scheme, car parking layout and details of
colour treatment for the windows, I am satisfied that the proposal would make a positive
contribution to the character of this conservation area. As such I am satisfied that the proposal
accords with the policies highlighted above.
Effect on the Mines Rescue Listed Building
Adopted policy EN12 states that the Council will not normally permit any development that
would be detrimental to the setting of a Listed Building or the environmental quality of the
surrounding area.
Revised replacement policy CH4 states that planning permission will only be granted for
development that would not have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building or
would detract from the architectural and historic character of a listed building.
The Council’s Conservation officer is of the opinion that the extensions are appropriate. As
stated earlier, I do not consider that the proposed cladding is appropriate in this instance, I do
consider that a modern design which includes modern materials helps define the original listed
building and additions. Internally, and with the assistance of the Council’s Conservation officer,
many of the original internal walls are to be reinstated. The original features which help define
116
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
the buildings historic contribution are also to be retained such as the original emergency doors
and light wells.
The Council’s Conservation officer advises that the building is currently suffering from water
damage. Whilst the future of this listed building is not at present under threat and is not a reason
stated by the applicant in support of the scheme, I am mindful that an appropriate and sensitive
scheme will ensure the long term future of this grade II listed building. Moreover, advice
contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and Historic Environment advised that
consideration should be given to appropriate conversions.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the scheme accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding the listed building.
Design, Layout and Siting
Adopted Policy DEV1 identifies a number of issues that should be taken into account when
determining applications, including the visual appearance of the development, its relationship to
its surroundings and the amount, design and layout of car parking provision.
Adopted Policy DEV2 states that planning permission will not normally be granted unless the
Council is satisfied with the quality of the design and the appearance of the development.
Adopted Policy DEV4 encourages greater consideration of crime prevention and personal and
property security in the design of new development. Regard will be had to a number of factors
including the provision of security features.
Draft Policy DES1 requires developments to respond to their physical context and to respect the
character of the surrounding area. In assessing the extent to which proposals comply with this
policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the relationship to existing buildings
and the quality and appropriateness of proposed materials. The Inspector has recommended no
changes to this policy.
Draft Policy DES11 updates Policy DEV4 of the Adopted UDP.
The neighbouring residents which adjoins the rear of the building on Orchard Avenue have
raised concerns regarding overlooking, the increase in height and the potential shadowing that
would result in the loss of aspect.
Loss of view is not a material planning consideration. The proposal would maintain more that
the Council’s normal separation distances. Whilst the proposal would introduce a new
residential use into the building, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in a loss of
privacy to the neighbouring residents.
117
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The applicant’s agent has provided a sunlight and shadow study. It shows that the neighbouring
properties to the rear would experience additional shadowing in the morning of the summer
months. There would be no difference in the evenings given that the sun sets in the west.
During the winter months the shadow effect would be in the opposite direction. As such, I am
satisfied that this study proves that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the
neighbouring residents by way of shadowing.
The main elevation fronting Ellenbrook Road would be unchanged by this proposal. The
existing doors which originally would have provided access for the emergency vehicles have
been retained. Duplex apartments would be provided in this location. The first floor extensions
on the existing single storey rear elements of the building have been designed and positioned so
that the existing light wells are retained. These light wells originally provided light to the
corridors adjacent to the training rooms. The central extension is proposed in materials to match
the existing main frontage. The extensions on the outer sides of the building are of modern
materials.
The elevation fronting Orchard Avenue would be cleaned and the original windows at ground
floor would be retained as would the chimney. The first floor outer extensions would introduce a
modern appearance which would separate the existing two storey building and the proposed
central extension with maturing ‘traditional’ roof. The windows are also of a modern
appearance. However, they would be timber and would include a number of larger windows to
carry through the vertical emphasis of the ground floor windows.
Turning to the proposed materials, the applicant has indicated that the roof of the two outer
single storey elements would be zinc. I consider that this material would help define what is
‘new’ and allows for a shallow pitch construction which ensures that the massing is minimised.
The applicant has also provided a sample of the proposed Eternit cladding. However, I am of the
opinion that this material is not suitable within this conservation area and have attached a
condition requiring samples to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. I
am satisfied that appropriate materials could be provided.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has considered that the application. He has raised
concerns regarding the number of entrance points to the building and lack of defensible space. I
have forwarded a copy of the advice to the applicant.
Whilst I am minded of these comments, I consider that the listed status of the building outweighs
the specific concerns regarding the number of entrance points. Should the scheme be designed to
provide only one entrance point at the front of the property, I consider that it would result in
significant alterations to the internal elements of the listed building.
With regard to defensible space, I have attached a condition requiring details of a landscaping
scheme which includes boundary treatments to be provided and agreed prior to the
commencement of development. In conclusion and given that the Police Architectural Liaison
118
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Officer has not objected to the scheme, I am satisfied that the proposal accords with the thrust of
policies DEV4 and DES11.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the scheme accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding design, layout and siting.
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 28 car parking spaces would be provided, I have no
highway objection to the application. I consider the level of car parking to be appropriate and in
accordance with the Council’s maximum car parking standards. I have attached a condition
requiring details of cycle stores and disabled parking provision to be provided.
I have no highway objection.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that the scheme accords with the policies highlighted above
regarding car parking and access.
Open Space
Adopted Policy H6 requires adequate provision of informal open space and children’s play
within new housing developments. This policy is linked to Policy H11 which sets out a sliding
scale for such provision.
Draft Policy H8 requires adequate and appropriate provision to be made for formal and informal
open space within housing developments.
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 contribution in this regard would be £63,232. I
am satisfied that the application therefore accords with Adopted policies H6 and H11 and Draft
Policy H8.
Other issues
I have instructed the applicant’s agent to undertake a bat survey. This survey has been
completed and the report has been forward to the Greater Manchester Ecology Unit. To date I
119
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
have not received a response from the ecology unit. I will report the findings of this assessment
to the Panel.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
The scheme has been reduced in scale and massing and the number of units reduced from the
previous scheme which was withdrawn from consideration.
The applicant has entered into several pre-applications discussions with myself, the Council’s
Conservation officer and English Heritage.
The developer has agreed to contribute £63,232 towards children’s equipped play space and
open space in accordance with policies H6 and H11.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the amendments made to the scale and massing of the proposal are more in
keeping with the surrounding residential context. I am satisfied that the design is of appropriate
quality to ensure that the character of the conservation area is retained and the future of this
listed building is given greater security.
I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in a detrimental impact upon the neighbouring
residents and that it fully accords with the policies contained within the development plan. I do
not consider that there are any material considerations that outweigh this view.
Therefore, I recommend that this proposal be approved subject to the following conditions and
that the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be authorised to enter into a
planning obligation for the provision of £63,232 towards the provision of public open space in
accordance with Adopted UDP policies H6 and H11 and Draft UDP policy H8 and SPG7.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. 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.
120
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
3. No development shall be started until samples of the facing materials to be used for the
external elevations of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
4. 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
5. The windows within the first floor extensions hereby approved shall be treated in a colour
which is to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development by the Local
Planning Authority.
6. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use a scheme detailing materials for
that part of the site to be used by vehicles shall be submitted for the written approval of the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of how the area will be laid out,
drained, surfaced and sealed. The car parking area shall be constructed in accordance with
the approved scheme and shall thereafter be made available at all times the premises are in
use.
7. No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the Report)
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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 investigation shall
where appropriate include a risk assessment and an options appraisal including the remedial
strategy.
The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation
survey.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including its
121
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
risk assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial
strategy.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local
Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
3. Standard Reason R007A Development-existing building
4. 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 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
5. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
6. Standard Reason R006A Character - conservation area
7. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
APPLICATION No:
06/51996/FUL
APPLICANT:
University Of Salford
LOCATION:
Site Of Venebles Building And Adjacent Land
University Crescent Salford
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing building and erection of three storey
building to provide new School of Law
WARD:
Irwell Riverside
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
122
Salford
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
This application is for the demolition of an existing university building and the erection of a
three storey building to provide a new school of law for the University of Salford. The site is on
Cockcroft Road within the University’s Peel Park campus adjacent to the Clifford Whitworth
Library and the Broadwalk, the main pedestrian route from The Crescent. To the east of the
application site is Peel Park.
The main building will be 20m by 38m, and three storeys in height. The ground floor would
contain six seminar spaces and an informal learning/study area as well as having an adjoining
240-seat lecture theatre. The first floor would have the offices for the school’s academic and
admin staff, research staff and informal meeting areas. The second floor would accommodate
the law library and further study rooms. The main pedestrian entrance will be from the southwest
corner of the building. Landscaped areas would also be provided within the site.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services - no objections subject to a condition requiring a
site investigation.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Officer – no objections.
Environment Agency – no objections based on a minimum floor level of 37.42m.
GMPTE – no objections as the site is well located in relation to public transport.
Urban Regeneration Company – no objections.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 17th January 2006.
The application site is located within the campus and the nearby buildings are all university
buildings, therefore neighbour consultation letters were not sent out.
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received no letters of objection in response to the application publicity.
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
SC7 – Adult, Higher and Further Education
T10 - Pedestrians
T13 – Car Parking
123
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
DRAFT REPLACEMENT UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 – Respecting Context
DES2 – Circulation and Movement
DES11 – Design and Crime
DES13 – Design Statements
EHC3 – University of Salford
A1 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans
A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Policy DEV1 outlines a number of criteria to which regard will be had in the determination of
applications. Of most relevance to this application are the location and nature of the proposed
development, the relationship to the road and public transport network, the likely scale and type
of traffic generation and the amount, layout and design of car parking provision.
Policy DEV2 relates to good design and states that when granting permission, the Council must
be satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development. Developments
should have regard to the character of the surrounding area.
Policy DEV4 states that the Council will encourage greater consideration of crime prevention
and security.
Policy SC7 outlines the Council’s support for the continued development of further education
within the City. It states that the continued expansion of the University of Salford will be
encouraged.
Policy T10 states that the Council will ensure that the needs of pedestrians are given greater
attention by, for example, promoting schemes which improve pedestrian safety and convenience
and improving pedestrian links between educational establishments and rail stations and bus
facilities.
Policy T13 requires the provision of adequate and appropriate car parking to meet the needs of
new development.
Draft policy DES1 requires development to respond to its physical context. In assessing whether
proposals comply with this policy, regard will be had to a number of factors, including the
relationship to existing buildings and the scale of the proposed development.
124
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Draft policy DES2 requires the design and layout of new development to maximise the
movement of pedestrians through and around sites and enable safe, direct and convenient access
to public transport facilities.
Draft policy DES11 updates policy DEV4 of the adopted UDP.
Draft policy DES13 requires applicants for all major developments to demonstrate how their
development takes account of the need for good design. A written statement is required
explaining the design principles, how these are reflected in the development’s layout, the
relationship of the proposal to the site and the wider context and how the development would
meet the Council’s design objectives and policies.
Draft policy ECH3 outlines the presumption in favour of development which supports the
University of Salford’s role as a nationally-important higher educational establishment where it
would be consistent with other Plan policies. Within the Peel Park campus, development will be
permitted if it satisfies a number of criteria, including improving access for public transport
users, cyclists and pedestrians as part of a Travel Plan and retaining a network of open spaces.
Draft policy A1 states that developments which would give rise to significant transport
implications will not be permitted unless they are accompanied by a Travel Plan.
Draft policy A10 requires developments to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists
and motorcyclists, not exceed the Council’s maximum car parking standards and provide safe
and secure parking facilities.
I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be whether the proposal is in
keeping with the context/has any impact on the surrounding area, whether the design is
acceptable, whether there are any the associated highway implications and whether the proposal
complies with the relevant policies of both the adopted and draft Unitary Development Plans.
Principle of Proposal
Given that the site is already in use by a university building and is within the Peel Park campus, I
consider the proposed new building to be acceptable and complementary to surrounding land
uses. The proposal accords with adopted policy SC7 and draft policy ECH3 which both support
the continued expansion of the university.
Design of Proposal
In terms of the siting and design of the proposed building, the applicant’s agent has provided a
statement detailing the rationale behind the positioning and design of the building, in accordance
with draft policy DES13. The surrounding university buildings are of different heights and
materials. The new law school would be adjacent to the existing Clifford Whitworth Library and
125
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
would be the same height to give the new building a massing proportion similar to its neighbour.
There would be a glass bridge at second floor level connecting the two buildings. The pedestrian
entrance to the proposed building has been positioned to serve the Broadwalk, which is the main
pedestrian thoroughfare through Peel Park campus between the Cockcroft, Newton and Peel
buildings and University House (student union).
The lecture theatre has been positioned at a key junction of the circulation routes of the Peel Park
campus, and it is intended to be a symbol for the law school. It could be used separately from
the main building as an event space due to lockable doors and shutters. The second floor
cantilevers over the floors below, as a greater area was required for the law library. This gives
the building a massing and presence, and the law library and study areas would have the
advantage of views over Peel Park. I therefore consider the proposal complies with DES13 and
DEV2.
Transport Issues
In accordance with adopted policies ECH3 and A1, the applicant has submitted a Travel Plan to
accompany this application. The Plan has been prepared for the whole of the university and
covers the period August 2004 – July 2009 and provides details of a number of initiatives aimed
at reducing reliance on the car and promoting the use of alternative modes of transport. There
are no existing car parking spaces on this site and no new spaces would be provided as part of
the proposal due to the site being within a pedestrian area enclosed by other university buildings
and Peel Park. Salford Crescent train station is in walking distance, approximately 150m to the
west of the new building, and offers regular services to Manchester, Liverpool, Bolton for
example. There are bus stops on Salford Crescent which form part of the Manchester – Eccles –
Peel Green Quality Bus Corridor which also offers frequent services. All student parking would
be directed to the Northern car park (access via University Road or Wallness Lane) or to the
outlying half price car parks where they can then use the free campus bus service which has a
drop off point less than 3 minutes walk from the proposed new law building.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
Although the application site falls within the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy Area, to which
the Chapel Street Planning Obligations legal agreement to provide a monetary contribution for
improvements relates, this is not required for this type of development. I consider that the
application itself would contribute to the regeneration of the area, by reinforcing the University’s
role as one of the country’s leading further educational establishments and raising the profile of
the area generally.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion I consider the proposed use and it’s siting to be acceptable accords with the
relevant policies of both the Adopted and First Deposit Unitary Development Plans. It would
126
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
result in improved facilities for the University. The application would be consistent with the aims
of objectives of the Travel Plan in providing opportunities to encourage the use of non-car modes
and reducing reliance on the car. I therefore recommend approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of the materials
for the external elevations and roof of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be carried out using the approved
materials, unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3. Prior to the commencement of development a site investigation report (the Report) shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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 investigation shall where appropriate include a risk
assessment and an options appraisal including the remedial strategy.
The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation
survey.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including its
risk assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial
strategy.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local
Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
127
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
2. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
APPLICATION No:
06/52114/FUL
APPLICANT:
Willam Developments Ltd
LOCATION:
Land On West Side Of Woodrow Way Irlam
PROPOSAL:
Erection of four - two storey buildings comprising 11
business/industrial units (Class B1 and B8) together with
associated car parking and construction of new vehicular and
pedestrian accesses
WARD:
Cadishead
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The site is currently vacant and was formerly the curtilage to a previous industrial use. The land
extends to 6.3 hectares is overgrown and naturally vegetated but with no species worthy of
retention
The site is accessed off Woodrow Way adjacent to the Lidl Store and the Higher Irlam
Neighbourhood Centre. The adjoining land to the south is occupied by industrial and storage
uses. Adjoining the site to the west are a number of residential properties.
The development comprises 11 individual units the proposed use of which is either B1 (light
industrial and offices) or B8 (warehousing). 7 units will be 2 storeys with the upper floors in
office use. The development has been designed around a single access of Woodrow Way with
the rear of the single storey units (units 5-8) facing the houses in order to screen the service yards
and activity from the residential uses.
The units would be of standard construction – brick with colour coated steel cladding, and the
height would be 6 metres for the single storey units and 8.8 metres for the 2 storey units.
It is proposed to provide 68 parking spaces and facilities for cycle parking.
128
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
SITE HISTORY
No relevant Planning history.
CONSULTATIONS
Environment Agency: – No objections subject to conditions
Environmental Health: no objection but recommended several conditions be attached
United Utilities: no objection subject to satisfactory drainage
Engineers: No objections subject to conditions
GMP Architectural Liaison Officer:
Close desire route footpaths which traverse the site
A secure 2.4 metre high fence to the South, West and joint Lidl boundary will be
required, constructed at the base to inhibit persons burrowing under. nb. Palisade
fencing would not be appropriate to the west boundary.
In order to mitigate the risk of unauthorised access to the rear of the units which are not
well observed (and may offer succor to persons illegally intending to enter the premises)
we will require fencing to the ends of the units.
All glazing should be laminated glass to minimize the risk and impact of burglary.
Similarly the facility should be designed to the minimum standards of the Secured By
Design award and the applicant should submit a statement indicating what measures have
been employed to minimize the risk of crime
Highways: No objections received
Irlam and Cadishead Community Committee: No objections received
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 16th March 2006
A site notice was displayed on 9th February 2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
Cara Construction, Woodrow way
Harboro House, Woodrow Way
Lidl Woodrow Way
Tesco Petrol Station Woodrow Way
129
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Buchanan Veterinary Practice, Liverpool Road
Flat 533, Liverpool Road
523 – 533(o), Liverpool Road
2 – 16 (e) Woods lane
1 – 21 Alexandra Grove
– 35 (o) Napier Green
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of representation signed by 15 local residents. The letter does not
object in principle to the development but raises some concerns in respect of noise or potential
for noise from the proposed development:The application does not provide details of the numbers of employees or the hours of use.
Specific uses are not allocated to specific units.
The perimeter treatment does not include an acoustic fence to contain noise within the
site.
Sound insulation properties to the units have not been specified.
The use of units 5, 6, 7, and 8 should be restricted to low noise activities.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
UR2 – An Inclusive Social Infrastructure
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: EC13/33 allocation for industrial and warehousing uses
Other policies:
DEV1 – Development Criteria
DEV2 – Good Design
DEV4 – Design and Crime
T13 – Car Parking
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: E3/2 allocation for employment development.
Other policies:
ST3 – Employment Supply
DES1 Respecting Context
DES7 Amenity
DES9 Landscaping
DES11 Design and Crime
A10 – Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New
Developments
130
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The site is allocated for employment uses and Policy E3/2 comments that offices or light
industrial uses would complement the adjacent industrial uses whilst protecting the amenity of
residents on Woods Road. The main issue is therefore whether the submitted scheme and
proposed uses adequately respects the proximity of the residential properties.
Noise
The application is accompanied by a Noise assessment, which concludes that noise from the site
can be controlled by way of planning conditions, which set the limits on the level of noise from
the site. It also refers to noise mitigation measures but does not specify the details.
I do not consider that it is problematic that specific uses are not allocated to specific units. Both
B1 and B8 uses are considered “low noise uses” which are normally capable of being
accommodated in close proximity to residential property.
The issue of the hours of operation have been raised with the applicant who has confirmed
agreement to the use of a condition limiting the hours of use in respect of delivery vehicles,
loading and unloading.
The application does not indicate fencing details but these will be required to meet the
requirements of the GMP and will also be required to include acoustic properties. The issue of
the fencing details can however be controlled by planning conditions.
Visual Amenity
A landscaping buffer zone up to 4 metres wide is proposed between the proposed units and the
residential properties and landscaping details, which comprise a line of individual trees, have
been provided to demonstrate that the screening will be adequate.
The nearest dwelling would be 15 metres from the rear elevation of the single storey units, which
is considered to be a satisfactory distance particularly in the context of there being a landscaped
buffer.
Other considerations
The issues raised by the GMP have been addressed by the imposition of planning conditions.
VALUE ADDED TO DEVELOPMENT
1.
The parking provision has been amended to provide for disabled persons parking and
cycle and motorcycle parking.
2.
A safe pedestrian access to each of the proposed units has been incorporated in to the
development.
3.
Landscaping details have been required to establish an adequate screening to the site.
131
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with both the site specific policies and
the other policies of the Council. The development is of a type and form that with appropriate
conditions will not unduly affect the residential amenities of the nearby residents.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of 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.
3. 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.
4. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the
disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such a scheme shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the
approved plans.
5. Prior to the commencement of the development, the developer shall submit a site
investigation report for the approval of the LPA. 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 LPA prior to the start of the
site investigation survey. Recommendations and remedial works contained within the
132
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
approved report shall be implemented by the developer prior to occupation of the site.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed by
the LPA.
6. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all
surface water drainage from vehicle parking shall be passed through an oil interceptor
designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being
drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor.
7. The site boundaries shall be fenced with a security fence to a minimum height of 2.4 metres
in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved by the Local planning Authority
prior to the commencement of development of the site. The fencing, as approved, shall be
erected prior to the first occupation of the premises and retained thereafter.
8. The southerly boundary of the site shall be fenced with acoustic quality fencing in
accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved by the Local planning Authority
prior to the commencement of development the site. The fencing, as approved, shall be
erected prior to the first occupation of the premises and retained at all times thereafter.
9. The southerly boundary of the site shall be fenced with acoustic quality fencing in
accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved by the Local planning Authority
prior to the commencement of development the site. The fencing, as approved, shall be
erected prior to the first occupation of the premises and retained at all times thereafter.
9. There shall be no access to the site by goods or delivery vehicles, nor any loading or
unloading including with use of a fork lift truck within the site except between the hours of
07.00 and 18.30 Monday to Friday and the hours of 08.00 and 16.00 on Saturday.
10. There shall be no storage of goods, materials or refuse other than within the confines of the
buildings hereby approved.
11. Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme and statement indicating what
measures are employed to minimize the risk of crime shall be submitted to and approved by
the Local Planning Authority. The scheme and statement as approved shall be implemented
prior to the first occupation of the premises and retained thereafter.
12. The use of audible reversing alarms on fork lift trucks shall not be permitted. Guidance can
be obtained from the Health and Safety Executive on alternative means of safe movement of
fork lift trucks.
13. The emergency doors to the rear of the units shall be kept closed except for emergencies
133
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
14. The yard area between the gables of units 2 and 5 shall not be used for loading / unloading of
vehicles.
15. The area marked for car parking between the gables of units 2 and 5 shall not be used for
parking for delivery vehicles.
16. The rating level of noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the existing background noise
level determined to be 45dBLA90(lh) between 7.00 and 19.00 Monday to Saturday and
42dBLA90(lh) between 19.00 and 23.00 Monday to Friday and 39dBLA90(5min) at any
other time. The noise level shall be determined at Location 1 as defined in Figure 1 of
Hepworth Acoustics Limited report Reference 3682.Iv2 dated October 2005. The
measurements and assessment shall be made according to BS 4142 : 1997 "Rating Industrial
Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas".
17. The rating level of noise emitted from the site shall not exceed the existing background noise
level determined to be 49dBLA90(lh) between 7.00 and 19.00 Monday to Saturday and
46dBLA90(lh) between 19.00 and 23.00 Monday to Friday and 41dBLA90(5min) at any
other time. The noise level shall be determined at Location 2 as defined in Figure 1 of
Hepworth Acoustics Limited report Reference 3682.Iv2 dated October 2005. The
measurements and assessment shall be made according to BS 4142 : 1997 "Rating Industrial
Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas".
18. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning General
Development Order 1988, no further plant or machinery shall be erected on the site under or
in accordance with Part 8 of Schedule 2 to that order without planning permission from the
local planning authority.
19. The units hereby approved shall be retained as individual business units and shall not be
combined to form larger units unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
20. The site shall be restricted to Class B1 and B8 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
134
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
4. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
5. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
6. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
7. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
8. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
9. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
10. Standard Reason R019 Avoidance of Doubt
11. In accordance with DEV4 Design and Crime
12. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
13. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
14. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
15. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
16. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
17. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
18. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
19. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
20. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that their site lies within 250m of a former landfill site. In the event
that landfill gas is migrating, suitable precautions need to be undertaken to avoid the ingress
of landfill gas into the new extension or existing house. It is strongly advised that the
detailed design specification incorporates suitable measures to mitigate against the ingress of
landfill gas. Any measures would be expected to conform to the standards contained in the
1990 Building research Establishment Report "Construction of new buildings on gas-
135
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
contaminated land"
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 applicants attention is drawn to the consultationletter recieved from United Utilities on
the 28.02.2006
4. For further discussions regarding the requirements of the Contaminated Land Condition, the
applicant/developer is advised to contact the Environmental Protection Team in the
Environment Directorate (Tel: 0161 737 0551).
5. Guidance can be obtained from the Health and Safety Executive on alternative means of safe
movement of fork lift trucks.
APPLICATION No:
06/52111/OUT
APPLICANT:
K Mack
LOCATION:
32, 32A And 34 Heron Street Pendlebury Swinton M27 4DJ
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing buildings and outline planning application
for development of land for residential purposes
WARD:
Pendlebury
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
The application relates to a plot of land on Heron Street in Swinton. The site is currently used for
a number of purposes. To the West of the site is a former a scrap yard which is now an area used
for storage. To the North East there is a garage on site which was used as a vehicle repair
workshop, however at present the garage is vacant and unused. To the South East fronting Heron
Street there is a detached residential dwelling which is currently occupied. The application site is
located in a predominately residential area. There are terraced houses bounding the site to the
North, East and South and to the West of the site are playing fields.
The application proposes the demolition of existing buildings within the site and the
development of land for residential purposes. All matters are reserved for future determinations.
136
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections, conditions have been recommended.
Environment Agency – No objections to the principle of development, conditions recommended.
PUBLICITY
This application has been advertised by a site notice.
The following addresses have been notified:
32A, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39 Heron Street, Swinton
21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39 Fraser Street, Swinton
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received eight letters of objections in response to the planning application publicity
The following issues have been raised:
Size of site to accommodate development of such size and scale.
Increased car parking and traffic along Heron Street.
Proposal would block out light.
Issues of overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbours.
Asbestos on site.
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
SD1 The North West Metropolitan Area
ADOPTED UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Site Specific Policies: None
Other Policies:
H1 Meeting Housing Needs
EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises
DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site Specific Policies: None
137
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Other Policies:
6th April 2006
ST11 Location of New Housing Development
H1 Provision of New Housing Development
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are to assess whether the development of
land for residential development purposes would be acceptable on this site and suitable within
the surrounding area and whether the development would be in accordance with the Adopted and
Draft Replacement UDP policies.
Policy H1 of the Adopted UDP 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. H1 of
the Draft Replacement Plan states that new housing development should contribute to the
provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area.
ST11 of the Draft Replacement UDP states the hierarchy which new sites will be brought
forward for development. Focus of this policy is towards previously developed land which are
well served by a choice of means of transport and are well related to housing, employment,
services and infrastructure.
Policy EC3 of the adopted UDP state that where existing industrial sites become vacant the City
Council will try to re-use or redevelop the site for similar uses except for if the site could be used
for other purposes without resulting in a material or unacceptable shortfall in the range of sites
available for economic development.
The proposal is for the development of land for residential purposes. The site is located in a
predominantly residential area and there is a residential unit on the application site. I therefore
consider that residential development would be more suited within the surrounding area than the
site’s previous use as a scrap yard and garage. I consider that the size of site and the employment
uses of the site could easily be relocated to other areas within Salford. The redevelopment of the
land for residential purposes would have visual, crime prevention and environmental benefits. I
consider these outweigh the loss of such a small, unallocated employment site.
The proposal would be on previously developed land which is within 120m of Manchester Road.
There would therefore be easy access to public transport and a range of other services and
facilities. This would satisfy the criteria for new development in policy ST11 of the Draft
Replacement UDP.
I have received objections relating to the scale of development on a relatively small piece of land
and the potential of development to result in a loss of light and the overlooking to surrounding
residential properties. Given that the application has been amended from that originally
138
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
submitted, approval is now sought for the principle only. The above matters will therefore be
considered at reserved matters stage and not as part of this application.
Issues have been raised from local residents as to the increase in traffic and car parking which
could potential result out of any development on the site. Given the nature of the proposed
development I have no objections to the proposal on highway safety grounds. Such issues can be
considered at reserved matters stage when the number of units and number of parking spaces is
known and can be assessed.
Issues have been received as to the use of asbestos on the site and the danger in demolishing
buildings. Issues have not been raised by either the Environmental Agency or by Environmental
Services and a condition has been attached to the application with regard to site investigations
prior to the commencement of development. Ensuring sites are tidy and operate safety is the
responsibility of Health and Safety Executive and not the Local Planning Authority.
CONCLUSION
The proposed residential use of the land is complementary to the adjoining land uses. The loss of
employment land to residential would not be contrary to the development plan and would help to
improve the area for the residents. The land is classed as Brownfield and in a well-served area
would therefore consistent with the policy ST11 of the Draft Replacement UDP.
Therefore I recommend that the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition B01B New reserved matters
2. Standard Condition B01X Reserved Matters
3. No development shall be commenced unless and until a site investigation report (the Report)
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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 investigation shall
where appropriate include a risk assessment and an options appraisal including the remedial
139
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
strategy.
The proposed risk assessment, including the sampling and analytical strategy shall be
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of the site investigation
survey.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Report including its
risk assessment, options appraisal and recommendations for implementation of the remedial
strategy.
Prior to discharge of the Contaminated Land Condition, a Site Completion Report shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The Site Completion Report shall
validate that all works were completed in accordance with those agreed by the Local
Planning Authority.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R001 Section 92
2. Standard Reason R002 Reserved Matters
3. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The proposed development lies within a coal mining area. In the circumstances the Applicant
should take account of any coal mining related hazards to the stability of their proposal.
Developers must also seek permission from the Coal Authority before undertaking any
operation that involves entry into any coal or mines of coal, including coal mine shafts and
adits and the implementation of site investigations or other works.
Property specific
summary information on any past, current or proposed surface and underground mining
activity to affect the development can be obtained from the Coal Authority. The Coal
Authority Mining Reports Service can be contacted on 0845 762 6848 or at www.coal.gov.uk
2. Prior to the commencement of the development the contractor who demolishes the building
shall contact Salford City Council's Building Control Unit to discuss demolition.
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
140
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
Access and egress for delivery vehicles shall be restricted to the working hours indicated
above.
4. Prior to the commencement of the development the developer shall submit a scheme
highlighting details of the likely resultant noise levels from activities during the construction
& demolition phases at the nearest noise sensitive premises.
5. The applicant is advised that the requirements of all the conditions precedent must be
satisfied prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to satisfy the conditions
precedent renders all development unauthorised and unlawful and appropriate action may be
taken by the Council.
APPLICATION No:
06/52173/FUL
APPLICANT:
Dawn Pritchard
LOCATION:
Land Rear Of 87 To 93 Rocky Lane Eccles
PROPOSAL:
Renewal of planning permission (01/42407/FUL) for the erection
of seven detached, one pair semi detached dwellings and one two
storey building comprising eight flats together with associated
landscaping, car parking and construction of new vehicular
access
WARD:
Eccles
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application seeks a renewal of an existing consent 01/42407/FUL which expires in July
2006 and relates to old industrial premises on Rocky Lane. The site covers an area of
approximately 0.4 hectares and is bounded by Highfield Road to the north, Harbern Close to the
west, the rear gardens of houses on Pine Grove and Park Road to the south and Rocky Lane to
the east. The buildings on the site were formerly used as a knitting mill but in recent years have
been let out for a variety of uses. The site is cleared and vacant.
It is proposed to construct seven detached properties, a pair of semi-detached properties and a
two storey block of eight flats. A new access to the site would be provided from Highfield road
and the existing access points into the site from Rocky Lane would be closed.
141
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
SITE HISTORY
In March 2000 planning permission was granted in outline for eight semi-detached properties, a
single detached property and a two storey block of eight flats, comprising eight flats
(99/39216/OUT).
In July 2001 planning permission was granted for the erection of seven detached, one pair semi
detached dwellings and one two storey building (01/42407/FUL).
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections in principle but requests conditions
regarding noise and ground contamination.
Greater Manchester Police Architectural Liaison Unit – No objections in principle but provide
advice.
Environment Agency – No objections in principle but requests conditions.
PUBLICITY
A site notice was displayed on 22.02.06
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
1 to 15 Park Road
3 to 7 Pine Grove
72, 74, 75 to 79 and 87 to 95 Rocky Lane
1 to 5 (incl) and 11 Harbern Close
2 and 4 Highfield Road
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received 2 letters of representation / objection in response to the planning application
publicity. The following issues have been raised:Tree causing a nuisance
Retention of Boundary Wall
Ownership of land issue
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
UR4 Setting Targets for the Recycling of Land and Buildings
142
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises,
DEV1 Development Criteria,
DEV1 Development Criteria,
DEV2 Good Design,
DEV4 Design and Crime,
T13 Car Parking,
H1 Meeting Housing Needs,
H6 and H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing Developments,
DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: DES1 Respecting Context,
DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours,
DES11 Design and Crime,
H1 Provision of New Housing Development,
H8 Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Developments,
A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking in New Development.
E5 Development within established employment areas
A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the disabled
PLANNING APPRAISAL
I consider that the main planning issues are whether the principle of development of the site for
residential purposes is acceptable and whether the proposal has any significant detrimental effect
upon neighbouring residents having regard to the site layout, position and design of the houses
and traffic generation and access.
Principle of Development
Policy EC3 states that the City Council will only allow alternative development on vacant
industrial sites in a number of instances that include where there is a strong case for rationalising
land uses. The site has now been cleared. The surrounding land uses are predominantly
residential and the wider area is also residential. There are no adjacent employment land uses. In
my view given the extant planning permission that this is an isolated ‘island’ former employment
site within an area of residential development there is and remains a strong case for rationalising
the land use to that now proposed. The revised UDP adopted policy E5 would not apply as this
site is not in my view within an established employment area.
Policy DEV1 states that the City Council will have regard to a number of factors when
determining applications for planning permission. These factors include the effect on
neighbouring residents and the layout and relationship of existing and proposed buildings.
143
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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.
National planning policy guidance is also relevant. PPG3: Housing highlights the need to
develop previously developed brownfield sites and where appropriate higher densities should be
considered.
The site has previously been developed and is a brownfield site as detailed in PPG 3, as such, I
consider that the principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential accommodation is
acceptable and accords with the thrust of the policies highlighted above.
Sec. 51 [of the 2004 Act] (3) amends sec.73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by
preventing an extension to the period of validity of a permission without the submission of a new
application. Applications that are received on or after 24th August 2005 should be determined in
accordance with the above provisions. The provisions do not apply to applications that were
determined or submitted prior to that date. However, where permission or consent was granted
prior to 24th August 2005, developers will retain until 23rd August 2006 the ability to seek to
extend the time-limit on that permission or consent. As such it is acceptable in this instance to
apply to renew this application given the time factors and it is also acceptable under S.73 of the
TCPA 1990 to impose new conditions relevant in the determination of this application.
Design, layout and Open Space
Adopted policy DEV2 states that the City Council will not normally grant planning permission
unless it is satisfied with the quality of design and the appearance of the development and policy.
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.
Policy DES7 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement UDP requires all new developments to
provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity. Development which would have an
unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments will not
normally be permitted.
144
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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 that 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 contribution in this regard would be £67,566. I
am satisfied that the application therefore accords with Adopted policies H6 and H11 and Draft
Policy H8.
Turning to traffic generation and highway safety. Members will recall at your meeting of 2nd
March 2006, the application to develop land off Chorlton Fold for some 23 houses/apartments. It
was resolved that given the increase in traffic from that development, traffic calming was
requested on Folly Lane. It has been suggested that a pedestrian crossing would introduce the
desired impact. Given that this proposed development will generate its own traffic which enters
Folly Lane close to the site already described, it is reasonable that a contribution is made to
facilitate the provision of a pedestrian crossing. Such a crossing will be beneficial to the new
occupants and also provide a safer environment for existing residents. This contribution should
be in the region of £15,000.
The flats are two storey only and adequate distances between existing and proposed properties
are maintained that are sufficient to ensure that there is no significant detrimental effect on the
amenity of any neighbouring occupier as a result of this development. The proposed semidetached and detached dwellings maintain a distance of 11m from the common rear boundary
with existing bungalows. These houses are also at an angle to each other and therefore I am
satisfied that sufficient distance exists between the approved dwellings and the existing houses
for there not to be any significant detrimental effect as a result of over looking or loss of privacy.
There are no protected trees on the site and I do not consider any of the trees adjacent to the site
worthy of protection. I consider the design and appearance of the dwellings and apartments
acceptable in this location and do not envisage any significant detrimental impact on the amenity
of the neighbouring residents or the character and appearance of the neighbouring street scenes. I
am satisfied that the proposed development is acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies.
Additional conditions have been attached relating to lighting, recycling, cycle provision and a
S106 contribution. I consider that these are appropriate for this development in accordance with
Adopted and Replacement Plan policies. I also recommend 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 and S278 of the Highways Act to secure the
provision of improved local open space/play equipment, local environmental improvements and
improvements to highway safety.
145
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
On the issue of ownership of the land as stated by the objector I have spoken with Mr Alan Wise
who is acting on behalf of the applicant and he has confirmed that the land as defined in the red
line boundary submitted with the planning application is entirely in the ownership of the
applicant Dawn Pritchard.
CONCLUSION
I consider that the application to renew the consent of 01/42407/FUL is acceptable and there are
no new material considerations that outweigh this recommendation.
It is further recommended that the Strategic Director of Customer and Support Services be
authorised to (1) enter into a Planning Obligation under S1206 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 for the contribution of £67,566 towards the provision and maintenance of
open space in the local area and (2) enter into an agreement under S278 of the Highways Act for
a contribution of £15,000 towards a pedestrian crossing on Rocky Lane.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. No development shall be started until full details of the colour and type of facing materials to
be used for the of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
3. 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.
4. Vehicular access to the site shall be from Highfield Road ONLY.
5. There shall be no reduction in the height of the boundary wall with Harbern Close without
the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
6. Standard Condition M03 Contaminated land
146
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
7. The site shall be treated in accordance with a detailed boundary treatment scheme that shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development
is commenced. Such scheme shall include full details of the proposed means of enclosure to
all boundaries and shall be carried out within three months of the commencement of
development.
8. 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 and Policy A2 Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled will be paid to the Local
Planning Authority for open space recreational space purposes, and highway safety.
9. No development shall commence until a scheme detailing recycling facilities for the
apartments and dwellings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Such scheme as is approved shall be implemented in full prior to the
occupation of any dwelling.
10. Prior to the commencement of the flats hereby approved, a scheme detailing the provision of
a cycle store shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to first occupation of any of the flats,
unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
11. No development shall commence until an external lighting scheme for the apartments has
been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such scheme as is
approved shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any dwelling.
12. Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme and statement indicating what
measures are employed to minimize the risk of crime shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme and statement as approved shall be
implemented prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings/flats and retained thereafter.
13. No development shall commence unless and until a scheme(s) demonstrating sustainable
construction techniques and energy efficiency have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and
maintained in accordance with the approved scheme(s).
(Reasons)
147
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R008A Development-Buildings in vicinity
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
4.
So as not to interfere with the free flow of traffic along Highfield Road in accordance with
policy DEV 1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan.
5. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
6. Standard Reason R028A Public safety
7. Standard Reason R005A Amenity-neighbours
8. To ensure the provision of appropriate open space, recreational space and highway safety
for future occupiers in accordance with policies H6 & H11 of the City of Salford Adopted
UDP 1995 and Policies A2 and H8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Replacement Plan 2003.
9. Reason: To encourage recycling of waste materials in accordance with Adopted UDP policy
MW11
10. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
11. Standard Reason R024A Amenity of future residents
12. In accordance with DEV4 of the Adopted UDP
13. To ensure the development accords with policies EN17 and EN17A of the City of Salford
Unitary Development Plan, Draft Replacement Plan 2004-16.
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
148
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
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's attention is drawn to the need to intercept surface water draining from the
development prior to its entering the highway across a footway, to meet the requirements of
Section 103 of the Highways Act 1980.
4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from the Environment
Agency.
5. This permission shall relate to the amended plans received on 21st June 2001 that show
amendments to the site layout.
6. The applicants attention is drawn to the Greater Manchester Polices Architectural Liaison
Officer's letter of 23.02.2006
7. The applicant is advised to consult Urban Visions highway Section regarding road adoption.
8. 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.
149
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
APPLICATION No:
06/52149/DEEM3
APPLICANT:
Housing Market Renewal Team
LOCATION:
Alleyway To Rear Of 2-42 Martin Street And 60-100
Chandos Grove Salford M5 5JZ
PROPOSAL:
Erection of gates to secure alleyway
WARD:
Weaste And Seedley
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application is for the erection of 2.85m high maximum lockable double leaf gates at the
alleyways to the rear of 2-42 Martin Street and 60-100 Chandos Grove, Salford 5 to provide
residents only access and improved security.
CONSULTATIONS
Peak and Northern Footpath Society – no response.
Ramblers Association – no objections.
Greater Manchester Pedestrian Association – no response.
Open Space Society – no response.
Public Right of Way Officer- no objections.
PUBLICITY
A press notice was published on 21.02.2006.
A site notice was displayed on 23.02.2006
The following neighbour addresses were notified:
2-42 (Even) Martin Street
60-100 (Even) Chandos Grove
26 Baltic Street
The Chandos Club
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letters of representation in response to the planning application publicity.
The following issues have been raised:
150
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
The need for those gates to reduce crime
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies: None
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DEV1 - Development Criteria
DEV4 - Design and Crime
T10 - Pedestrians
REVISED DEPOSIT DRAFT REPLACEMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: None
Other policies:
DES1 – Respecting Context
DES11 – Design and Crime
A2 – Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are the impact of the proposed gates on
the street scene and the amenity of neighbouring residents and the impact the proposed
closures would have upon crime, the fear of crime and public accessibility. 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 surroundings. Policy DEV2 seeks to achieve high quality design and
to secure an acceptable appearance in development proposals. With respect to DEV1, DEV2
and DES 1, I am of the opinion that the design, siting, height and colour - being black powder
coated, of the proposed gates would be in keeping with the scale, height and character of the
other boundary treatments and therefore would not form visually obtrusive features for the
surrounding area nor the local residents would suffer any significant loss of amenity.
Policy T10 and DES 2 take into account the safety and the accessibility of existing public
rights of way in the planning of new development. Policy A2 also states that development
that would result in the loss of an existing public right of way will only be permitted where it
can be demonstrated that adequate levels of access for the disabled, pedestrians and cyclists
will be maintained through the site.
151
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
I am satisfied that the proposed alley gates are not going to result in any significant loss of
permeability through the site as pedestrians and cyclists would be able to use other routes
which are equally safe and secure to access the area. The local residents will also be able to
gain access through the alley gates, as they will be issued with the relevant keys. As such I
am satisfied that the proposal meets the criteria in policy T10, DES 2 and A2. The proposal
would still preserve high level of accessibility and safety to all users.
Policies DEV4 and DES11 seeks for proposals to deter crime in the interests of personal and
property security without compromising on the appearance of the development. Although the
objector claims there are no burglaries within the area, and the area would not require the
erection of those gates, figures provided by Groundwork indicate that 54% of the residents
have experienced incidents of crime and anti social behavior within this rear alleyway and
93% of the residents felt that the security of their property would be improved by installation
of the gates. The Crime Reduction Officer from GMP and the police also fully support the
alleyway gating scheme. I am therefore of the opinion that the proposal is supported by
majority of the residents and the proposed gates will assist in crime prevention and reduce
anti-social behaviour in the area by only allowing neighbouring residents access to the
alleyways lie. This will help to reduce residents’ fear of crime and overall beneficial to the
area, which is in accordance with policy DEV4 and DES11.
I believe that the loss of existing public rights of way is acceptable given the proposed
improvements in crime prevention. I consider that the benefits of the proposal as outlined
above outweigh the access issue because the alleys are not recreational routes and the users of
the alleys are mainly local residents who would continue to have access to the rear alleyways
when they are no longer public rights of way.
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 contribute to an improved quality of life, improve the pedestrian
environment, eliminating vandalism, theft and other criminal activity for existing and future
local residents. 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 Draft
Replacement UDP. I therefore recommend the application be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Subject to the following Conditions
1. Standard Condition A03 Three year time limit
2. 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.
152
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
6th April 2006
3. The proposed gates shall be painted in the approved colour (Black RAL 9005) within 3
months of their erection, and maintained in such a condition thereafter.
(Reasons)
1. Standard Reason R000 Section 91
2. Standard Reason R026A Interests of highway safety
3. Standard Reason R004A Amenity-area
Note(s) for Applicant
1. The applicant is advised that a formal easement will be required with United Utilities for
the closures hereby approved.
153
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
PART I
SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 6th April 2006
154