Part 1
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR FOR
SUSTAINABLE REGENERATION
TO THE JOINT LEAD MEMBERS FOR HOUSING AND PLANNING
FOR BRIEFING ON 17th February 2009
FOR DECISION BY THE LEAD MEMBER FOR PLANNING ON
3rd March 2009
TITLE: Responses to the Draft Pendleton Planning Guidance Consultation
and Approval of the Pendleton Planning Guidance.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Lead Member for Planning and Lead Member for Housing note the
responses received to the Draft Pendleton Planning Guidance consultation
and support the changes to the Draft Planning Guidance proposed in
response to the comments received as detailed in Annex 3 of this report;
and
2. That Lead Member for Planning approves the amended Pendleton
Planning Guidance document as set out in Annex 4 of the report and
adopts it on behalf of the City Council.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Draft Pendleton Planning Guidance was published
for public consultation purposes between the 5th September and 16th October
2008. The consultation process involved sending an information sheet and
questionnaire to all occupied households within the area, inviting comments
from a variety of consultees with an interest in the area, advertising the
consultation within the local paper and making the document available for
comment on line and at public buildings throughout the area.
Twenty two consultees responded and 116 questionnaires were completed
and returned. The responses received were generally very positive.
As a result of the representations and comments received, some minor
revisions have been made to the Planning Guidance and it is now
recommended that the final amended document is approved and adopted.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS:
1
1. Information sheet and Questionnaire sent to all residents within the
Pendleton Planning Guidance area
2. Letter to consultees and list of recipients
3. Written responses from consultees
4. Completed questionnaires from local residents.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK: Failure to produce an appropriate planning policy
framework for the area could undermine investment in the Private Finance
Initiative process.
SOURCE OF FUNDING: The Pendleton Planning Guidance has been jointly
funded from the Local Development Framework and Private Finance Initiative
budgets.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS:
Contact Officer and Extension No: Richard Lester Ext 2129
Date Consulted: 15th January 2009
Comments: This report identifies the need for an appropriate planning policy
framework for Pendleton. Though the Guidance is a non-statutory document,
it has been the subject of an extensive and robust consultation process and
should assist and carry significant weight in the consideration of planning
matters and thereby reduce the risk of legal challenges.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Contact Officer and Extension No: Nigel Dickens Ext 2585
Date Consulted: 15th January 2009
Comments: There are no direct financial consequences arising through the
report. As indicated within the report the guidance will support the Private
Finance Initiative and any financial implications from this will be considered as
part of this project.
COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS: The final version of the Planning
Guidance has been informed by public consultation. Once approved it will be
published on the council’s web pages, respondents will be notified and a
press release issued.
VALUE FOR MONEY IMPLICATIONS: No implications.
CLIENT IMPLICATIONS: Not applicable.
2
PROPERTY: The Pendleton Planning Guidance will have significant
implications for council owned land and buildings within the Pendleton area.
HUMAN RESOURCES: Not applicable.
CONTACT OFFICER:
Amelia Lucas
Extension No: 8722
WARD(S) TO WHICH REPORT RELATE(S): Langworthy, Irwell Riverside
KEY COUNCIL POLICIES: Local Development Framework
DETAILS:
1.0
Background
1.1
Pendleton Planning Guidance is intended to provide a planning
policy framework to guide the future regeneration of the Pendleton
area and support work on the Pendleton Private Finance Initiative
bid. It was originally to have been prepared in the form of an Area
Action Plan Development Plan Document with work commencing
in April 2005. However, in October 2007 it became apparent that
the timetable for producing a formal Development Plan Document
was creating problems for the renewal process for a variety of
reasons:
 Potential Private Finance Initiative bidders needed more
short term certainty;
 Planning proposals for key sites would need to be
determined in the immediate future; and
 New proposals had emerged which had not been consulted
on at previous stages of the Area Action Plan process.
For these reasons it was therefore decided to prepare nonstatutory Planning Guidance for the area as an alternative to a
Development Plan Document, building upon the work that had
already been undertaken to support and progress the Area Action
Plan.
1.2
The Pendleton Planning Guidance sets out a vision and set of
strategic objectives for the regeneration of Pendleton. It is a
broad, overarching document which outlines regeneration
aspirations of Pendleton, and seeks to guide development
anticipated within the Private Finance Initiative area. It includes a
range of policies intended to address and guide the regeneration
3
activity. However, it is not an all encompassing document and
needs to be read alongside other relevant planning policy
documents.
2.0
2.1
Details
Draft Pendleton Planning Guidance was subject to a six week
public consultation exercise between the 5th September and the
16th October 2008.
2.2
As part of the consultation process a questionnaire was sent to all
households within the Pendleton area as part of an information
sheet which outlined the key points of the Draft Pendleton
Planning Guidance document. In addition, those consultees who
had been consulted previously on the Area Action Plan were
invited to make representations.
The document and the
questionnaire were posted on the city council’s web site and made
available for inspection at public buildings throughout the area.
2.3
The Questionnaire and Responses to it
A copy of the questionnaire is attached in Annex 1. Essentially it
gives details of 15 proposals within the Draft Pendleton Planning
Guidance, and asks residents whether they “agreed”, “disagreed”
or “didn’t know”, (ie neither agreed nor disagreed) with them. In
addition there was also the opportunity for residents to outline any
additional comments they might have about any of the provisions
of the Planning Guidance.
2.4
One hundred and sixteen completed questionnaires were received
from the local residents and these indicated considerable support
for all of the 15 proposals contained within the draft document, with
at least 62% of respondees agreeing with each proposal.
2.5
The most highly supported proposals were:
 Making it easier to walk through the area (91% agreement)
 The provision of more shops and the general improvement of
the town centre (89% agreement); and
 The improvement of open spaces, including improved
landscaping, play provision and overlooking by housing to
improve security (89% agreement.
The least supported proposal was to make it easier to cycle
through the area, but even here 62% of respondents agreed with
the proposal and only 16% disagreed..
2.6
A more detailed analysis of the questionnaire responses is
included in Annex 2 to this report.
4
Consultee Responses
2.7
In addition to the questionnaire responses a further twenty two
consultees submitted representations. A detailed summary of
these representations and proposed city council responses to
them is outlined in Annex 3 to the report. A summary of responses
are set out below:
















Future development proposals in the area must not prejudice
the aim to restore and reopen the Manchester, Bolton, Bury
Canal or pollute the waterway.
Design consideration should be embedded throughout the
document, reflecting established planning policy at national
and regional levels.
The Planning Guidance should make provision for an allotment
site which would be in keeping with policies for increasing
public greenspace in the area.
Regional Spatial Strategy references in the document should
be updated.
Support for natural space and green networks and the concept
of no loss of open space.
The Planning Guidance should provide opportunities for
biodiversity to be conserved and references to biodiversity in
the guidance should be enhanced.
There should be greater emphasis on issues of climate change,
sustainable development and energy efficiency with explicit
reference to climate change and the importance that the area
should play in terms of reducing its carbon footprint.
Concern about the future of the Lance Burn Health Centre and
whether it is to be retained, demolished or replaced.
Concern about the future of business premises at Kemsing
Walk.
References to crime and design should be strengthened.
The importance of retail development in regenerating an area
and the
contribution it can make towards reducing
unemployment.
The need for a more “joined up” approach to the provision of
public transport, cycling and walking.
Concern that the type of residential dwellings proposed should
reflect demand and that there is no real need for apartments.
Support for the use of developer contributions towards public
transport improvements.
The need for new developments to be better linked to transport,
community and retail development.
General support for the improvements to public transport as
proposed under Policy 7 although tempered by concerns
regarding the nature of provision, the improvements proposed
and the funding mechanisms for such proposals.
5




2.8
The need for greater emphasis to be given to mixed
development within the town centre, which would give a better
use of land, increased vitality and improved sustainability than
a single retail use as proposed under Policy 9 “Town Centre”.
The need for enhanced references to Education and
Community facilities within the document rather than merely restate Unitary Development Plan policies.
The need for any retail development to comply with the
requirements of PPS6 “Planning for Town Centres” and make
car parking available to all short term visitors.
Concerns as to the deliverability of key proposals given “credit
crunch” situation.
Following consideration of the various comments received, the
following key changes to the document are recommended prior to
its adoption:










Include a reference within the introduction to the Planning
Guidance (paragraph 1.4), as to the need to read the document
together with the Unitary Development Plan, Regional Spatial
Strategy and relevant Supplementary Planning Documents so
as to appreciate the full planning policy framework impacting on
the area.
Provide greater clarity as to the relationship between the
Planning Guidance and the former Area Action Plan (paragraph
1.13).
Updated references to the Regional Spatial Strategy in
paragraph 1.20 to indicate the recent approval/publication of
the Regional Spatial Strategy and explain progress on the
partial review.
Inclusion of a reference to Unitary Development Plan Policy
ST14 “Global Environment” as one of the Unitary Development
Plan policies that provide an important context for the Planning
Guidance (paragraph 1.22 and Appendix A, paragraph A2).
Inclusion of a reference to the minimisation of energy demand
and the use of low carbon and renewable energy technologies
both as an overall objective of the Planning Guidance and in
Policy 1 “Residential Development” of the Guidance
Update the plan to show the revised boundary of the Private
Finance Initiative area (Map 2).
Incorporate references to “secure by design” in Policy 1.
Inclusion of a reference to the biodiversity importance of green
boulevards, green links and open spaces (new paragraph 3.11
incorporated)
Inclusion of an additional plan under Policy 5 to identify
Pendleton Gateway.
Amend Policy 6 “Improved Pedestrian and Cycle Links” to refer
to the need for improved pedestrian and cycle access between
the town centre and Salford Crescent Station.
6






Amend Policy 7 “Public Transport” to refer to the proposed
conversion of the Manchester – Wigan railway line to tram train
use rather than exclusively light rail (ie metrolink) use.
Update references to the Salford Crescent Railway Station
option study to indicate that a decision on this should be known
in Spring 2009 (paragraph 3.19).
Amend Policy 10 “Edge of Town Centre” to correctly refer to
any retail development needing to be consistent with Unitary
Development Plan Policy S2
Inclusion of references in Policy 12 to the need for
consideration to be given to the retention/replacement or
relocation of the Lance Burn Health Centre and the commercial
premises on Kemsing Walk, as part of the redevelopment of
the High Street, Windsor and Wrotham Close area.
Emphasise the indicative nature of the implementation
timetable set out in Table 5.2 and also paragraph 5.9.
Include baseline data and a target for 2020 for Objective 4 in
the Monitoring and Review Chapter relating to retail floorspace.
The amendments proposed are all minor in nature and do not
change the thrust of individual policies or the overall document.
The overall impact of the proposed changes in sustainability and
equality terms is therefore considered to be negligible and
revisions to the Sustainability Assessment and Equality Impact
Assessments carried out at the Draft Planning Guidance stage are
not considered to be necessary.
A copy of the amended Pendleton Planning Guidance is appended
in Annex 4.
3.0
Conclusion
3.1
The Pendleton area is an area that will undergo substantial change
over the coming years primarily as a result of the Private Finance
Initiative. These changes will be guided by the Pendleton Planning
Guidance which will influence the decisions of developers, and
other key stakeholders in the area. In its slightly amended form it
is therefore recommended for approval.
Paul Walker
Strategic Director for Sustainable Regeneration
7
ANNEX 1
Questionnaire Proposals
As part of the Information Sheet residents were asked to indicate whether
they “agreed”, “don’t know” or “disagreed” with the following proposals:

The remodeling of Pendleton to introduce a strong pattern of connected
streets, providing direct routes for pedestrians and cyclists.

The retention of the local grid pattern of streets and the scale of existing
terraced homes in Seedley and Langworthy.

The improvement of key gateways into Pendleton and the protection of its
main landmarks.

The greening of main transport routes through tree planting and improved
provision for pedestrians and cyclists.

The improvement of open spaces, including improved landscaping, play
provision and overlooking by housing to improve security.

Improved access to the town centre (for example by removing the
subways, putting in more road crossings and tree planting).

Making it easier to walk through the area.

Making it easier to cycle through the area.

Improved public transport provision.

Asking developers to contribute towards the overall improvement of the
area.

The provision of more shops and the general improvement of the town
centre.

The expansion of the town centre beyond Broad Street, Hankinson Way,
Heywood Way and Fitzwarren Street.

The redevelopment of etates in the area for a mixture of apartments,
family dwellings and some low rise apartments.

Provision of a new Primary School at Glendinning Street.

Provision of a new primary school through the redevelopment of
Langworthy Road Primary School.
8
ANNEX 2
PENDLETON QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES SUMMARY
See Annex 2
ANNEX 3
PENDLETON PLANNING GUIDANCE CONSULTATION RESPONSES AND
THE RESPONSE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ANNEX 4
DRAFT PLANNING GUIDANCE
PENDLETON
9