INTRODUCTION
This report relates to an appeal against non-determination of an application and the purpose
of the report is to establish the City Council’s case at the forthcoming Public Inquiry. The
format of the report is the same as usual but there is a need for a more comprehensive
introduction than would normally be the case. I have divided this section of the report as
follows.
Previous Outline Permission on the Site
Application 04/47628/OUT was approved in July 2004. This outline permission was for a
development of 258 apartments, 1935sq.m of A3 retail floorspace, a 120 room hotel, a
1195sq.m health/leisure club and 2490sq.m of A1, B2 and B1 floorspace including associated
parking, accesses, landscaping, open space and riverside walkway. All matters were
reserved.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company Strategic Vision
The URC’s published draft Vision and Regeneration Framework identifies this site and the
immediate surrounding area as a key riverfront urban and neighbourhood node comprising
public realm and open space. The Framework sets the stage for ensuring the highest quality
of urban and architectural excellence. The main proposals of the Framework include;i)
that the River Irwell corridor must become a primary open space system defined
by world class urban projects and parks. The Oldfield Road, Adelphi Street, Silk
Street axis will become a primary north/south boulevard linking Salford Quays,
Ordsall, Chapel Street, Middlewood, the Bolton-Bury Canal, the Arts and Media
Centre, the River Irwell and Lower Broughton renewal area.
ii)
The Meadows are overlooked by a terrace from the Crescent and formed by the
new grand boulevard. The Meadows will become a major high quality landscaped
area – a special green and blue oasis within walking distance of Central Salford
and Manchester
iii)
Historic buildings will be reclaimed and renewed and high quality new buildings
and spaces created to form a new heart in the old city.
Preparation of Framework Document
The City Council has commissioned Urban Vision to prepare a framework document to guide
the development of the Adelphi Street area. It has been published in draft, titled “Adelphi- A
Vision for Development”, and has been sent out to interested parties for consultation. It
provides a set of principles to guide developers in their proposals for new development. It is
intended that the document will be a consideration in the redevelopment of these sites and
developers, in their proposals, will need to accord with the design principles set out within
this framework before planning permission will be granted.
Other Applications in the Surrounding Area
Within the immediate vicinity of the site the City Council is dealing with a number of
applications and development enquiries.
To the north of the site there is a current application for 295 apartments in buildings of 20 and
16 storeys. The City Council is currently in detailed pre-application discussions with the
applicant and a new set of architects on alternative proposals for the site that accord with the
development framework.
The site to the east across Adelphi Street is owned by Salford University and the City Council
is currently in detailed pre-application discussions with the University and their architects on
a new Media Building on this site.
To the southeast the City Council is in detailed pre-application discussions with the
developers of the former Salford Royal Hospital building on the third phase of that
development.
Some distance from the site and to the north there is a current application (06/52316/OUT)
from Countryside Properties for the first phase of development on a 22.7 hectare site that
forms part of the Lower Broughton regeneration area. This regeneration area does include
though all the land on the opposite side of the river Irwell to this site. The application forms
part of the regeneration area that comprises approximately 74 hectares. Countryside
properties have formed a development partnership with the Council and have entered into an
agreement that establishes a framework under which the redevelopment of the wider Lower
Broughton area will be planned phased and implemented.
Lower Broughton Design Code Supplementary Planning Document
The Lower Broughton Design Code, adopted by the City Council as a supplementary
planning document on 18 January 2006 establishes design principles for the regeneration of
the Lower Broughton area of the city. The document sets out the provision of a new
vehicular bridge over the river Irwell in order to improve accessibility to and from
surrounding areas as one of the key improvements for the Lower Broughton Area. The
document also indicates the position of the new vehicular bridge on Adelphi Street in the
general vicinity of this application site.
DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL
This application relates to land on the western side of Adelphi Street and lies between the
road and the river Irwell. The site is in a prominent location and is highly visible from both
the A6 along Crescent and the Meadows. The site covers just less than 1 hectare and is
bounded to the north by vacant industrial land beyond which is residential development and
to the south by a public house and a former school building occupied now by Salford
University. To the east is the site of the former Farmer Norton building. The site overlooks
the University Meadows. An existing riverside walkway runs along the boundary of the site
with the river. The southern boundary of the site adjoins the Adelphi/Bexley Square
Conservation Area.
The scale of buildings around the site varies from the multi storey Maxwell Building across
the Meadows at the University to the three storey Listed Buildings in St Philips Square. Both
adjoining sites to the north and south are vacant redevelopment sites. The immediate vicinity
of the site though is characterised by cleared vacant sites.
There is no dominant style of building in the vicinity of the site with existing buildings
ranging from derelict industrial buildings to the north and south to the distinctive Victorian
former Salford Royal Hospital to the south west with its modern extension closer to this site.
There are clusters of older Listed buildings around Bank Place to the south and west of the
site that form the historical grain to the wider Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area.
The wider area is the focus for a number of civic and cultural buildings including Salford
Cathedral, the main campus to Salford University, magistrate’s courts, museum and art
gallery. There are well established residential areas to the north and east and on the south
side of Adelphi Street consisting mainly of post-war high density housing predominantly two
storeys in height.
It is proposed to demolish all buildings on the site and erect a series of buildings, the highest
of which would be a 24 storey tower at the junction of Adelphi Street and a new public
square leading to a new road bridge across the river. The new bridge does not form part of
this application. The proposed development is made up of a number of constituent parts that
can be broken down into separate distinct elements as follows: The ‘Fingers’ – A series of ‘fingers’ provide the maximum number of apartments
with views of the river and define private garden courtyards that offer open views of
the river and the opposite bank. These ‘fingers’ are angled south-west to provide
sunlight. They are six storeys in height above street level and are separated from each
other by a distance of 20m.
 The ‘Wall’ – This four storey element runs along Adelphi Street and provides a strong
and active street frontage whilst enclosing the private garden courtyards. Gaps in the
‘wall’ provide access to the main residential cores from the streetscape whilst also
providing pedestrians with glimpsed views through the courtyards to the opposite
riverbank beyond. A ‘moat’ created between the ‘wall’ and the back of pavement
provides ventilation to the car parking and acts as a defensible buffer to the residential
units. B1 office units along this frontage to Adelphi Street activate the street frontage.
 The ‘Chads’ – The ‘fingers’ run up over the ‘wall’ to create elements like ‘chads’ that
peer over the wall looking back towards Chapel Street to the south. These ‘chads’
provide the scheme with a strong presence from Chapel Street and mark the gaps in
the ‘wall’ creating gateways to the residential cores. The ‘chads’ are five storeys in
height above the wall with a storey void beneath. They are therefore ten storeys from
street level. Height in this location provides additional apartments without
overshadowing the garden courtyards during the afternoon and evening.
 The ‘Bank’- The change in level between Adelphi Street and the river is used to
conceal the car parking. The car parking forms the landscaped ‘bank’ on which the
private garden courtyards are formed. The front of the ‘bank’ is skinned with two
storeys of linear residential units lining the riverside walk.
 The ‘Beacon’ – The proposed new vehicular and pedestrian link bridge is brought into
the site opposite Peru Street. A new public space provides a gateway space for the
bridge and a focus for the schemes mixed use activity. A 24 storey point tower acts as
a ‘beacon’, land marking the new gateway and acting as wayfinder for people wishing
to use the new river crossing. The top of the tower is stepped to provide a distinctive
skyline.
The development would provide a total of 473 apartments together with 2120sq.m of food,
drink and A1 retail uses, 590sq.m of offices, a new riverside walkway, new public and
private open spaces, car parking and pedestrian and vehicle access to Adelphi Street. There
would be a mix of one, two and three bedroomed dwellings. A total of 386 designated
parking spaces would be provided along with dropping off spaces in the public square.
Access would be from Adelphi Street.
The mix of apartment types is as follows:270 one-bed apartments
201 two-bed apartments
2 three-bed apartments
The material palette is kept to a minimum. The wall will be red brickwork with recessed
punched windows providing a solid edge to the private gardens beyond. The northern sides
of the ‘fingers’ and ‘chads’ that peer over the wall will be solid but lightweight metal panels
fabricated from material such as stabilised copper, running horizontally. The south facing
sides of the ‘fingers’ and ‘chads’ will be lightweight and more transparent with vertical cedar
slats. The tower will have the same palette of material as the fingers but will have a vertical
orientation of panels.
Pedestrian access within and around the site is to be enhanced as part of the development
principally through the provision of the riverside walk and the new public square and access
to the future bridge crossing the river.
SITE HISTORY
As outlined above planning application 04/47628/OUT was approved in July 2004. This
outline permission was for a development of 258 apartments, 1935sq.m of A3 retail
floorspace, a 120 room hotel, a 1195sq.m health/leisure club and 2490sq.m of A1, B2 and B1
floorspace including associated parking, accesses, landscaping, open space and riverside
walkway. All matters were reserved.
A comparison between the approved outline scheme and the current proposal shows that the
new proposal is for considerably more floorspace than the outline permission. Taking an
average apartment size of 50sq.m and an average hotel room size of 20sq.m the respective
gross floorspaces are 18985sq.m for the outline permission and 26360sq.m for the current
scheme. The outline scheme proposed 258 apartments while the current scheme proposes
473 apartments.
CONSULTATIONS
Director of Environmental Services – No objections but recommends conditions regarding
contaminated land and noise.
CABE – We applaud the initial moves by Salford to regenerate Chapel Street and turn the
River Irwell into a public amenity, but we think it is incumbent on the URC and the planning
authority to provide clear development guidance addressing quantum, scale and height within
the broader context of the site before major schemes, such as this one, can be assessed. This
is particularly important given the opportunity to provide a high quality, public river walkway
and access to open space across the river. Given that this site and the one adjacent to it are
the first major developments within this regeneration area, it is important that a high design
quality precedent is set. We have reviewed this scheme in the knowledge of its relationship
to the development proposed on the adjacent site, but we would like to question how these
schemes fit into the URC vision.
We think that any proposed masterplan should carefully consider a strategy for the river
front, access to it and any position of the new bridge links.
We support the mix of uses proposed. However, nothing that we have seen convinces us that
this level of development is appropriate for this site. We acknowledge that this site is
complex due to change in levels. We have a number of additional concerns about this project
and believe the following items need to be addressed:







We can see no reason for the rational behind the proposed orientation of the finger
blocks; the angular constraint causes planning problems and does not resolve any
other issues. The plans indicate a number of awkward unresolved corners, this is
especially apparent within the car park areas.
We note there is 20m between the finger blocks; whilst this may exceed the minimum
recommendations, we feel that the combined impact of the massing, orientation and
the number of units could make the blocks feel unacceptably close.
We think that the impact of the tall developments on adjacent sites should be carefully
considered, especially in terms of the relationship between the two schemes on either
side of the shared site boundary. We wonder whether it is worth considering moving
the river crossing to between the two sites in light of this issue? We think that there
should be greater emphasis placed on the assessment of long term views of the
development, especially those from across the river.
The relationship of the buildings to the river needs to be addressed, especially in
terms of its impact on the proposed riverside walk. Currently the route passes under
the building, which we doubt will be pleasant. We would like to see a clear route
linking adjacent sites. For this quantity of accommodation, we think that there is not
enough private or public realm, quality external space needs to be created.
We welcome the provision of active street frontage to Adelphi Street, however, the
frontages are compromised by the proposed slot for car parking ventilation. This has
a negative impact on the street treatment and is not ideal, especially where the
frontage accommodates a residential apartment. Additionally, we think that the
proposed gaps between the units frontage to provide visual links to the river are too
narrow; larger and fewer gaps would be far more effective.
At present there are no clear entry sequences to the residential accommodation from
the street frontage, and access routes are convoluted, especially to the riverside
apartments. This will be difficult for both residents and visitors; sole access from the
car park is unacceptable.
The majority of flats are single aspect and unfortunately north facing. We find that
the plans lack imagination and were perturbed to find a bedroom with no windows in
one flat. We would strongly recommend the provision of natural light to the long
unlit central corridors. We think that if balconies are used to provide amenity space,
they should be large enough to take a table and four chairs.
In conclusion, we would recommend a fundamental rethink is required to address our
concerns. Salford City Council and the URC should prioritise establishing a robust
development framework to ensure that development proposals coming forward will
collectively deliver a sustainable, high quality place that builds on its character and assets.
United Utilities – No objections subject to conditions.
Central Salford Urban Regeneration Company – The Central Salford Vision and
Regeneration Framework sets the stage for ensuring the highest quality of urban and
architectural excellence. Great value will be placed upon meeting the design and social
aspirations of the Regeneration Framework. The River Irwell corridor must become a
primary open space system defined by world class urban projects and parks. The Oldfield
Road, Adelphi Street, Silk Street axis will become a primary north/south boulevard linking
Salford Quays, Ordsall, Chapel Street, Middlewood, the Bolton Bury Canal, the Arts and
Media Centre, the River Irwell and Lower broughton renewal area. It is along this spine of
renewal that the Adelphi sites play a vital role.
Context
 The proposal is located at a key hinge site between the River Irwell, Adelphi Street,
Chapel Street and the Arts and Media Centre. Although attempts have been made to
relate to this context the proposal needs to better respond to surrounding context,
assets and emerging public realm strategies.
 Clear access to the river from surrounding streets and public spaces must be
encouraged.
 The proposal must contribute to a sense of riverfront open space as seen from Chapel
Street and as experienced from Adelphi Street.
Public and Private Open Space
 The site layout conceptually works with the idea of a street wall and finger ‘piers’
towards the river. However, the site design should allow for clear and strong spaces
to the river Irwell and the emerging River Irwell public realm network.
 All edges along the river should be animated with at-grade residential units and/or
amenities such as cafes or event programs related to the residences.
 Transition and access from the upper level courtyard gardens should be carried out
with more public infrastructure.
 Peru and Cleminson Streets must terminate with generous and high quality public
spaces designed in tandem with the emerging River Irwell public realm.
 Semi-private/private open spaces are not clearly defined. Grade related units should
establish a clear hierarchy between public and private space.
 The River Irwell weir should be a primary focus of new public space.
 Public art must be incorporated into the public realm strategy.
Building Typology and Massing
 In general, the amount of density in the finger block layout seems forced onto an
otherwise constricted site. Some reallocation of density may be allowed within the
point tower layout, or a conversion of a ‘finger pier’ to a point tower.
 The ‘finger’ buildings length should be shortened to allow for more open courtyards
fronting onto the water, better views along the river and less ‘under belly’ spaces at
the river’s edge.
 Setbacks should be established from the river edge
 The ground floor of buildings should provide generous floor to ceiling heights to
maximise flexibility.
Parking Resolution
 residential Units or active uses should be integrated into all structured parking. Long
expanses of blank walls will not be allowed.
 Street parking along Adelphi Street should be encouraged
Land Use Strategy

Provision of community amenity spaces shall be located to define public spaces and
street frontages
Peru Bridge
 The location of a bridge crossing at Peru Street is viewed as beneficial to the area.
The bridge will allow better pedestrian and vehicular cross circulation to the
Meadows park and any future park program. However the bridge must be designed as
an integral component of the Meadows Park and not merely a functional transport
connection. The bridge is first and foremost conceived of as a ‘public square’
spanning the River Irwell directly into the new urban park. The bridge location and
character must be determined simultaneously with the park design process. An
alternative location for the bridge may be considered at the terminus of Cleminson
Street.
Meeting Strategic Objectives for Central Salford
 We recognise and appreciate the effort that has been invested into the design thus far,
and that revisions based on previous comments have already been incorporated. We
are of the position that the application must undergo further design revision, in light
of the above comments. We suggest further refinement to building massing and a
greater deal of thought and consideration in achieving an outstanding public realm.
This site will set a precedent for the River Irwell as a series of distinct
neighbourhoods linked by a great public riverfront park system.
Environment Agency – The Agency objects to the proposed development a submitted on the
following grounds:
The proposed plans submitted do not identify the line of the bank top to the River
Irwell. More than one line is shown on the plan and it is suspected that the dashed
site boundary line is actually the bank top formed by the river wall. Accordingly, the
hard landscaped features that extend beyond the site boundary may not be feasible to
construct without encroaching into the channel. The position of any columns within
the riverside area should also be clarified. In order to overcome this objection the
applicant is advised to submit revised plans detailing cross sections through the bank
showing existing and proposed profiles. These details must be submitted and agreed
before the application is determined.
The appeal drawings do take into account the objections raised by the Environment Agency.
Peter Hunter – The City Council’s Architectural Consultant - Peter Hunter considers that
the scheme has an odd language to it, that it is repetitive and a little old fashioned, that in
aesthetic terms it of alien character and finally that it represents an overdevelopment of the
site. The distances between the buildings are not great enough and the courtyard areas will
be dark and foreboding places.
Greater Manchester Architectural Liaison Unit – no comments to date.
Ramblers’ Association – supports this proposal, a welcome example of urban regeneration.
Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive – The site is within reasonable
walking distance of the bus stops on Chapel Street and the Crescent that form part of the
Manchester – Eccles Quality Bus Corridor. These bus stops offer access to frequent services
to large numbers of destinations including Manchester, Eccles, Bolton, Swinton, and Leigh.
Bus stops on Adelphi Street offer access on a Monday-Saturday hourly daytime service
between Manchester, Broughton, Pendleton, Hope Hospital and Swinton. Future residents
and staff of this proposal would therefore have access to a choice of travel mode, which
should help to reduce the number of car journeys otherwise generated by this development.
Furthermore, the use of this site for high density residential development is supported as it
maximises the benefits of the good public transport accessibility. It is encouraging to note
the relatively low level of car parking provision accompanying this proposal and it is hoped
that this level of car parking does not increase with any future amended detail or
resubmissions of this application.
Salford Crescent railway station is currently just beyond reasonable walking distance from
the site (800m in this instance). It would be possible to reduce the walking distance between
Salford Crescent railway station and the site to less than 800m and improve the public
transport accessibility of the site with a combination of bridge links across the river Irwell
and a safe, convenient pedestrian environment between the site and Salford Crescent station.
If Salford City Council is proposing to build an access bridge over the river (as stated in the
supporting information) GMPTE suggest that it would be reasonable to seek a financial
contribution from the applicant towards the cost of this work. Future residents of the
development would benefit from improved access to rail services.
Given the size of the proposed development it is also considered appropriate that a Travel
Plan be requested to cover the whole site with the aim of reducing the amount of travel by car
generated by this development.
PUBLICITY
The application has been advertised by means of both site and press notices.
The following neighbour addresses have been notified of the application:
Salford University
Adelphi Public House
REPRESENTATIONS
I have received one letter of objection in response to the planning application publicity. 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
Construction work will be disruptive.
There is insufficient car parking.
The scheme is contrary to policy.
The tower would be out of character
REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY.
DP3 - Quality in New Development
UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY
Site specific policies: CS1 – Central Salford, EC11/8 Sites for Office Development
Other policies: EC3 Re-Use of Sites and Premises, EN5 Nature Conservation, EN9 Derelict
and Vacant Land, EN11 Protection and Enhancement of Conservation Areas, EN23 CroalIrwell Valley, H1 Meeting Housing Needs, DEV1 Development Criteria, DEV2 Good
Design, DEV4 Design and Crime, H6 & H11 Open Space Provision Within New Housing
Developments, T13 Car Parking, CS1 Central Salford, DEV11 Development and Flood Risk.
DRAFT REPLACEMENT UDP POLICY
Site Specific: MX1 – Development in Mixed-Use Areas
Other policies: ST7 Mixed Use Development, ST11 Location of New Development, DES1
Respecting Context, DES2 Circulation and Movement, DES3 Design of Public Space, DES4
Relationship of Development to Public Space, DES5 Tall Buildings, DES6 Waterside
Development, DES13 Design Statements, H1 Supply of Housing, H8 Open Space Provision
Associated with New Housing Development, MX2 – Chapel Street frontage, DES2
Circulation and Movement, A1 Transport Assessments and Travel Plans, A8 Impact of
Development on the Highway Network, A10 Provision of Car, Cycle and Motorcycle Parking
in New Developments, DES7 Amenity of Users and Neighbours, DES11 Design and Crime,
EN6 Irwell Valley, EN7D Wildlife Corridors, EN16 Flood Risk and Surface Water, R5
Countryside Access Network.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
The main planning issues relating to this application are whether the principle of the
development is acceptable, whether the mix of uses is acceptable, whether the scale, massing
and design of the development is of sufficiently high quality in this important part of the city,
whether the highway situation is adequate and whether the bridge is properly located and
whether there is sufficient parking and open space provision.
Principle of the Development
Policy H1 of both the adopted and draft UDPs require 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.
Draft 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 Northwest
Draft policy MX1/2 states the intention of the Council to develop this area of the City as a
vibrant mixed-use area with a broad range of uses and activities. 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 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 prominence of the location and the
existing and previous use of the site. Paragraph 2 of the reasoned justification to draft policy
MX1 states that:In particular the policy will be used to ensure that residential development does not
unduly predominate, to the detriment of the vitality and sustainability of the areas. On larger
sites, single-use residential developments are unlikely to be acceptable, and a significant
proportion of non-residential uses will normally be required.
The Adelphi Street area includes a number of key sites for which the City Council and the
Central Salford URC are keen to promote a design-led approach to regeneration. The future
of this area is to be looked at in conjunction with the Chapel Street Regeneration Strategy and
the URC’s Vision for Central Salford. The site lies within a very important area for the City
and it is important that the area is developed in a comprehensive manner that is planned and
coordinated to maximise the benefits of each site. The City Council’s draft Adelphi Vision
for Development has been out for consultation and weight can be attached to this document
in the decision making process. However, it is still in draft form and has not been adopted by
the City Council and is unlikely to carry weight as a supplementary planning document. The
weight that can be attached to it is therefore limited. In these circumstances then it is even
more important that no individual development should compromise the successful
implementation of the comprehensive redevelopment of this important part of the City.
The site is previously developed in an accessible location close to the Regional Centre. The
principle of the redevelopment of the site has already been accepted through the outline
approval and is therefore acceptable and in accordance with both local planning policy and
national government guidance. Comparison of the two schemes though is not favourable. An
analysis of the total floor areas given over to each individual use in the development shows
that approximately 92% of the gross floorspace of the proposals is given over to residential
use. Residential development will predominate. Therefore although the application proposes
a mix of uses, namely residential, commercial and retail, including active uses at ground floor
level along Adelphi Street it is considered that the development provides a token mix of uses
and that the predominance of apartments does not constitute a the necessary vibrant mix of
uses and activities.
I am mindful that policy MX1 refers to a much larger area than just this site and much larger
than the Adelphi Street area and that the requirement for a broad range of activities and uses
applies to this whole area rather than to each individual site within that area. But, I would
point out that the reasoned justification to the policy states that on larger sites (of which this I
consider to be one) single-use residential developments are unlikely to be acceptable and a
significant proportion of non-residential uses will normally be required. It goes on to state
that where proposed developments incorporate very high levels of sustainable design and
technology, or would be exceptional in design quality, then this may be considered to
outweigh the need to secure a mix of uses on a particular site.
I am satisfied that 8% of non-residential floorspace does not represent a significant
proportion of this particular development and I am equally satisfied that the development
does not incorporate very high levels of sustainable design or technology just as it is not of
exceptional design quality. I am also mindful that recent permissions within the MX1 policy
area have, without exception, been residential driven and that pre-application advice to
developers is resulting now in schemes that do provide a broader mix of uses than has been
the case previously. In this instance had other factors counted in favour of the application
and had the mix been the only issue with which I had objection then the decision as to
whether or not to recommend refusal on this ground would be more finely balanced. In this
instance though I consider that the inadequate mix is one of several factors about which I
have strong concerns. I consider therefore that the application is contrary to policy MX1 and
should be refused on this ground.
With regard to Policy H1 I am concerned that the proposed development incorporates a
significantly large number of one and two bedroom apartments that it is considered will give
rise to an unbalanced form of residential provision that will be contrary to the City Council’s
aims and objectives and contrary to policy H1. As with the mix of uses, the mix of dwelling
types is an area where the position is shifting over time. Pre-application advise being given
now is that a predominance of one bedroomed apartments over two bedroomed apartments
will not be acceptable and that a minimum of 10% three bedroomed properties is now
required. Previously the City Council has considered that the Abito development in
Greengate, an entirely studio scheme has been acceptable. However, a predominance of one
bedroomed schemes within the mixed use policy area will not be acceptable and will not
contribute to the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings as required by policy H1.
I am mindful though that the City Council has not yet gone out to consultation on its housing
supplementary planning document that looks at mix, affordable housing, accessibility and
student accommodation. This document is not likely to restrict apartment provision but will
set minimum standards for the size of dwellings that will result in schemes providing a
minimum of 50% two bedroomed dwellings capable of accommodating three people. On the
other hand, by the time that the appeal is heard at inquiry this document will have been
subject to public consultation and therefore it will carry more weight as a material
consideration. I am therefore of the opinion that the development is contrary to draft policy
H1 as it fails to contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the
local area as a result of the predominance of one bedroomed accommodation and the very
limited supply of three bedroomed accommodation.
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 architects for the scheme have sought to achieve a high quality of design and have made
amendments to this design during pre- application discussions with the City Council.
However, I have a number of specific reservations with regard to aspects of the design.
These reservations have been confirmed by the views of the URC and especially by the
expert opinion of CABE.
My main concerns are with regard to the following main issues:The ‘fingers’ are just 20m apart and are angled such that the space between, that
serves as the private amenity space to the development, will be cramped, austere,
uninviting and a generally poor environment. This issue has been picked up by the
URC, by CABE and by Peter Hunter.
The most important views of this development are from Crescent and from the
Meadows. Again, the angle of the fingers, their separation, their size and their
massing is such that the development will appear as an expanse of built form, as
overdevelopment and as lacking in amenity space. Again, this issue is one that is
picked up by the URC, by CABE and by Peter Hunter.
I am concerned that the gaps in the ‘wall’ that the architects acknowledge will provide
glimpses of the Meadows and the opposite bank of the river are so narrow as offer no
real sense of openness at all. Any glimpse that is allowed will be so fleeting as to be
missed to all but the most observant passer-by
These are my main concerns with regard to the design of the scheme and given the views
expressed by the URC, by CABE, by Peter Hunter and my own reservations regarding the
development I am of the opinion that the proposed development is not therefore of sufficient
quality in terms of its design and that it is therefore contrary to policies DES1, DEV2, DES3
and DES5.
Impact on adjacent Conservation Area
The site adjoins the Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area on its southern boundary. The
site beyond this boundary is another vacant development site though, as is the site to the
south east across Adelphi Street. The cluster of Listed Buildings around St Phillip’s Church
are some distance from the site. The tower is located on that part of the site furthest from the
Conservation Area and the height of development along Adelphi Street has deliberately been
kept to four storeys in response to my concerns regarding maintaining the urban grain of the
area. I do not therefore consider that the proposed development has any detrimental effect on
the Adelphi/Bexley Square Conservation Area.
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 outlined above my concerns regarding the private courtyards in the development that I
consider would create poor environments for future residents by reason of the proximity and
angling of the ‘fingers’. I do not consider that future residents of the development would be
provided with a satisfactory level of 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.
While I have a number of minor concerns with regard to junction geometry and have a
preference in highway terms for the bridge to be in an alternative position, these concerns are
not sufficient ground to justify formal objection to the application.
Position of the Road Bridge
In July 2005 the Lead Member for Planning considered a report on the location of the
proposed bridge across the river Irwell from Adelphi Street.
The Council has been minded for some years to secure the provision of a road bridge over the
river to connect the Meadows and Spike Island with Adelphi Street thereby providing a
through route from the communities in Lower Broughton to the rest of Salford. As outlined
above this bridge is one of the accessibility improvements identified in the Lower Broughton
Design Code SPD and an indicative siting is shown within a broad area of land in the vicinity
of the junction of Peru Street and Adelphi Street (as proposed in this application). The
position of the bridge link has never previously been fixed though.
There are two development sites in this area as outlined above. The previous outline consent
on this site required the developer to maintain a road reservation at the boundary of the two
sites, i.e. splitting the land take between the two sites as a pragmatic solution.
The position in July 2005 was that both this application and that on the land to the north were
under consideration and both developers were in the situation where they were putting
forward proposals to develop their sites without a firm decision by the City Council as to the
preferred location for the bridging point. The current applicants had taken the onus on
themselves to propose a bridge crossing and road link within their site to ensure activity
within their proposed new public square and increased footfall to benefit the commercial uses
proposed.
The report to Lead Member set out the two main options for the position of the bridge.
1.
In the position shown on the application.
2.
Between the two development sites.
The preferred position expressed in the report was option 2 and it was this option that was
preferred by Lead Member.
The Adelphi Development Framework was progressed on the basis of option 2. The draft
framework document sought the views of local residents and stakeholders on the position of
the bridge located between the development sites. The response by the applicant to the
consultation draft did not specifically object to the proposed position of the bridge but did
raise queries as to why it had changed.
The current application shows the bridge in the option 1 position. I consider that Members
should make the position of the bridge a ground for objection to the application.
Open Space Provision
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 1151 bed spaces, which equates to a commuted sum
value of £282,317. In addition, in accordance with the Chapel Street SPG, a contribution of
£1000 per apartment would be generated by the development for environmental
improvements.
Other Objections Raised by Neighbours
There are no existing residents living in close proximity to this site and therefore I do not
consider that construction work involved in this development would be so disruptive as to
form a ground for objection to the proposal.
I do not consider that the tower would necessary be out of character with the emerging scale
of development in this part of the city.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons outlined above I have significant concerns regarding the proposals and
consider that they represent an overdevelopment of the site that do not provide the mix of
uses or dwelling types required and which in several respects fall far short of the standard of
design necessary. I am satisfied that the application does not comply with policies of the
development plan as a whole.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Members would have been minded to refuse planning permission on grounds of
overdevelopment, poor design, inadequate mix of uses and apartment types and the
position of the bridge, and that the proposed development is contrary to draft policies
DES1, DES3, DES5, DES7, MX1, H1 and adopted policy DEV1, DEV2 and H1.