Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel

Public Document Pack

Dear Member, You are invited to attend the meeting of the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel to be held as follows for the transaction of the business indicated. Miranda Carruthers-Watt Proper Officer

DATE: Thursday, 25 July 2019

TIME: 9.30 am

VENUE: Salford Suite, Salford Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton

In accordance with ‘The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014,’ the press and public have the right to film, video, photograph or record this meeting.

Members attending this meeting with a personal interest in an item on the agenda must disclose the existence and nature of that interest and, if it is a prejudicial interest, withdraw from the meeting during the discussion and voting on the item.

Please note that there will be a break for Members at approximately 11.30 a.m. until 11.45 a.m.

AGENDA

1 The Panel is asked to consider whether it agrees to the inclusion of the items listed in Parts 1 and 2 of the agenda.

2 Apologies for absence.

3 Declarations of interest.

4 To approve, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting held (Pages 1 - 2) on 4 July 2019.

5 Planning applications and related development control issues. (Pages 3 - 8)

9.30 A.M.

5a 18/72845/FUL Land off Hilton Lane, Worsley (Pages 9 - 60)

11.45 A.M.

5b 18/71836/FUL Block B, Sentinel House, Peel Street, Eccles M30 0NG (Pages 61 - 70)

5c 18/72311/FUL Land adjacent to the AJ Bell Stadium, Eccles M30 7EY (Pages 71 - 100) 6 Planning applications determined under delegated authority. (Pages 101 - 128)

7 Planning and enforcement appeals. (Pages 129 - 132)

8 Urgent business.

9 Exclusion of the Public.

10 Part 2 - Closed to the Public.

11 Urgent business.

Contact Officer: Tel No: 0161 793 2602 Claire Edwards, Democratic Services E-Mail: [email protected] Agenda Item 4

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

4th July 2019

Meeting commenced: 10.50 a.m. “ ended: 11.55 a.m.

PRESENT: Councillor Mashiter - in the Chair

Councillors Antrobus, Burch, Cammell, Clarke, Dawson, Dickman, Edwards, K. Garrido, Linden, Morris, Sharpe and Walker

Please note that a list of persons in attendance in respect of matters referred to in Minute 11 is included at Appendix A.

8. WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors N. Reynolds and Joan Walsh.

The Chair outlined the procedure for the meeting.

9. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors Edwards and Sharpe declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of planning application reference 18/72845/FUL (Land off Hilton Lane, Worsley) and left the room during consideration of the application.

10. MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

RESOLVED: THAT the minutes of the meeting held on 13th June 2019 be agreed as a correct record.

11. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

(Full details of the matter referred to in this Minute are contained in the report of the Strategic Director Place (Main Report), as amended in the case of applications marked * in the Amendment Report).

RESOLVED: THAT, following consideration by the Panel, the under-mentioned applications for planning permission were determined, subject to the conditions listed in the above reports, as indicated below –

Application Number/ Site Development Decision Applicant

18/72845/FUL Land Off Hilton Lane Erection of up to 209 Deferred, for consideration Worsley dwellings, creation of open at the next meeting of the Bellway Homes Plc space and associated Panel, due to some infrastructure and works documents on the electronic planning file not having published to the website.

19/73259/COU 163 Leigh Road Change of use from C3 Granted, subject to the Worsley (dwelling) at ground floor condition controlling the Miss Hannah Cunningham M28 1LN level to sui generis (beauty hours of operation being salon) amended as follows –

 Monday to Friday 10am to 8pm  Saturday 9am to 5pm  No opening on Sundays and Bank Holidays Page 1 The Panel raised concerns with regard to existing problems in the area relating to inconsiderate parking and traffic and asked that (a) the local highway authority be requested to visit the site in order to review the existing traffic regulation orders in the area around the application site, and (b) arrangements be made for a parking enforcement officer to visit the site.

12. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

The Strategic Director Place submitted a report containing details of planning applications which he had determined under delegated authority during June 2019 and were not, therefore, for consideration by the Panel.

RESOLVED: THAT the content of the report be noted.

APPENDIX A – LIST OF ATTENDEES

APPLICATION REF. IN FAVOUR OBJECTING WARD COUNCILLOR / MP OBSERVING

18/72845/FUL Matthew Shipman Barry Woodling Councillor Critchley Arran Jackson Land off Hilton Lane Alan Malley Emily McDermott (on behalf Worsley James Purcell of Barbara Keeley MP) Nick Litherland Kate McNulty

19/73259/COU Sue Parkinson 163 Leigh Road Vi Nugent Worsley Ann Horsley M28 1LN Derek Stout

Page 2 Agenda Item 5

REPORT

Strategic Director Place

To the

Planning & Transportation Regulatory Panel

25 th July 2019

Planning Applications and Related Development Control Matters

(Not considered to contain exempt information)

Non-members of the panel are invited to attend the meeting during consideration of any applications included within the report in which they have a particular interest.

MAIN REPORT

Page1 3

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972-SECTIONS 100A-100K

LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS

The “Background Papers” relating to all reports on Planning Applications appearing in this report are: -

1. The appropriate ‘Development Information Folder’ for each planning application on the Agenda. The contents of the folder include the following documents:

(a) The submitted planning application (forms, plans and supporting documents and Information)

(b) Correspondence with statutory and other consultees;

2. Any previous planning applications and subsequent Decision Notices (if issued referred to in each planning application report on this Agenda.

3. Any Tree Preservation Order referred to in each planning application report on the agenda.

4. Any Conservation Area Plan referred to in each planning application report on the agenda.

5. The “Standard Planning Conditions Etc…’Booklet’.

6. Papers specifically listed under a heading “Other Background Papers” in any planning report on the agenda.

These Background Papers can normally be inspected between the hours of 8.30 am and 4.30 pm on any weekday (except Bank Holidays) at Urban Vision Partnership Ltd reception at the Salford Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, M27 5AW. Whilst background papers will be made available for inspection as quickly as possible, immediate access cannot be guaranteed. It is therefore advisable wherever practical, to make an appointment by telephoning (0161) 779 4852. Alternatively the planning application forms, plans and supporting information is available on the Council’s web site http://publicaccess.salford.gov.uk/publicaccess/

Publications

In considering planning applications or legal action, the City Council has regard to a wide range of published documents, although not ‘Background Papers’ for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972 – Sections 100A-100K, are nevertheless important to the consideration of these matters.

The Government in particular has published a large number of circulars and Statutory Instruments in addition to the primary legislation and these are available from Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, which has a bookshop in Manchester.

The following Local Authority publications are available for inspection at Salford Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, M27 5AW. They can also be viewed on the Council’s web site http://www.salford.gov.uk/planning-policy.htm

Page2 4

If you do not have personal access to the Internet, free access is available to registered members at each of the sixteen libraries in the city .

• Design and Crime – SPD • Trees and Development – SPD • House Extensions – SPD • Housing Planning Guidance • Salford Green Space Strategy – SPD • Nature Conservation & Biodiversity – SPD • Lower Broughton Design Code – SPD • Ellesmere Park – SPD • Hot Food Take Aways - SPD • Telecommunications - SPD • Planning Obligations - SPD • Sustainable Design and Construction SPD • Design SPD

The following Planning Guidance documents have been adopted by the City Council

• The Exchange, Greengate • Mediacity:uk & Quays Point • Housing Planning Guidance • Claremont and Weaste Neighbourhood Plan • Salford City Council - UDP Policy E5: Development in Established Employment Areas • Flood Risk and Development Planning Guidance • Salford central • Irwell City Park • Ordsall Riverside • Pendleton Planning Guidance

Amendments/Additional Information received after the completion of this series of reports

Any amendment/additional information, such as amendments to planning applications, additional information from applicants or consultees, representations from interested parties, etc…. received AFTER the preparation of this series of reports will be reported at the Panel meeting together with any changes to my recommendation.

Page3 5 PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

Set out below are details of all of the items which will be considered by the Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel at their meeting. Some of these applications may be subject to a s.106 legal agreement (planning obligation). Where this is the case it will be stated next to the recommendation using the code ‘S106’ as detailed in the list of codes below.

Ward Members may make representations to the Panel on all items below including those with an associated s.106 legal agreement.

INDEX REPORT

DATE: 25.07.2019

RECOMMENDATION PER = Approve AUTH = Consent REF = Refuse FUL = Full application ADV = Advert Application OUT = Outline Application HH = Householder Application REM = Reserved Matters COU = Change of use LBC = Listed Building Consent CON = Conservation Area Consent S106 = Subject to a S106 Obligation

Little Hulton

18/72845/FUL RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

TIME OF MEETING: 09:30am

PROPOSAL: Erection of up to 209 dwellings, creation of open space and associated infrastructure and works

LOCATION: Land Off Hilton Lane Worsley

APPLICANT: Bellway Homes Plc

Page 6

Eccles

18/71836/FUL RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

TIME OF MEETING: 11:45am

PROPOSAL: Continued use of the 1st to 14th Floor of Block B as a 159 bed hotel with retention of an extension to accommodate a lift and retention of extraction fans, erection of cycle parking and a bin store with changes to car parking layout.

LOCATION: Block B Sentinel House Peel Street Eccles M30 0NG

APPLICANT: Mr Mingliang Chen

Irlam

18/72311/FUL RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

TIME OF MEETING: 11:45am

PROPOSAL: Erection of Class A1 foodstore with associated access, car parking, servicing and hard and soft landscaping

LOCATION: Land Adjacent To The AJ Bell Stadium Eccles M30 7EY

APPLICANT: Mr Stuart Parks

Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5a PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

APPLICATION No: 18/72845/FUL APPLICANT: Bellway Homes Plc LOCATION: Land Off Hilton Lane, Worsley PROPOSAL: Erection of up to 209 dwellings, creation of open space and associated infrastructure and works. WARD: Little Hulton

UPDATE FOLLOWING DEFERRAL OF APPLICATION ON 4TH JULY 2019

Members will recall that this application was defferred when considered at the planning panel meeting on the 4th July 2019 due to some documents on the electronic planning file not publishing to the website.

Following the decision to defer the application there has been no further correspondance which is relevant to the determination of the application.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AMENDMENT SHEET FOR REPORT TO PANEL ON 4TH JULY 2019

Additional Observations

As stated in the published report the S106 package has been amended since the application was presented to members in May. The updated S106 package was shared with ward councillors of both Little Hulton and

Page 9 Walkden South, as the site is located within Little Hulton but is on the boundary with Walkden South. We have received comments from Councillors and there comments are summarized below:

Planning Obligations

Councillor Sharpe has stated that he would like to see a greater proportion of the S106 monies to be spent within Little Hulton as he believes this is the last significant development site within Little Hulton for which S106 monies could be secured. Councillor Critchley does not support the majority of the S106 projects; noting that the site is due to move to Walkden South ward next year and that the site is disconnected from Little Hulton and only accessible via roads in Walkden South. He therefore believes that this should be reflected in where the S106 funds are spent. Councillor Edwards has commented specifically on the heads of terms so her response is contained within the detailed below. Specific comments from Councillors Critchley and Sharpe on the heads of terms are also set out below.

£275,880 Bus Service contribution – Improvements to bus services in the area, to improve accessibility from the development to key interchanges and the wider high frequency bus network.

Comments from Councillors – The Councillors are opposed to any monies going towards a shuttle bus. They do not think the definitions of improving connectivity to "key interchanges" and "high frequency bus network" is clear. They note that the problem for people in this area is that there are limited services that connect people, longer distances without needing to change services, to major centres of employment, such as Logistics North, MediaCity and AJ Bell Stadium. They state that the monies should provide a new service. Questions are asked as to whether this bus service is a viable plan and whether the monies should be directed towards infrastructure improvements, to make bus journeys quicker, and to provide more flexibility if a viable bus option cannot be found.

Response – In consultation with the City’s Transport Engineer the wording of the bus services contribution is quite broad so that it could cover a range of options for future bus service improvements, as a preferred solution has not yet been identified, and will be specific to need when the monies become available.

In respect of the suggested bus routes by Councillors, these have been reviewed by the Council’s bus consultant and the conclusion of this review was that these would not be viable commercially or in the long term following any support, or were already provided by other similar services.

In respect of providing infrastructure improvements, a number of schemes to improve priority for buses on the A6 have been considered but there is nothing definite at this current time that the development can contribute towards. Increasing highway capacity can also have an adverse impact on an area and adjacent junctions by facilitating suppressed demand/ encouraging the reassignment of traffic on neighbouring routes to the one made more attractive by the creation of increased capacity.

£252,921 Open space contribution – Improvements to Parr Fold Park and/or Peel Park.

Comments from Councillors – Peel Park will secure a significant S106 payment from the Brackley Golf Club development therefore monies should be directed elsewhere and Councillors believe that future residents will not use Peel Park due to its distance from the application site. There is a difference of opinion on whether the monies should be spent on the sports facilities in Parr Fold Park or the MUGA at Madamswood Playing Fields.

Conclusion – Madamswood Playing Fields has had investment in the past but has suffered from significant vandalism. The open space chapter that supports Salford Greenspace Strategy SPD identifies that no investment is currently planned for this site. Local facilities are also important but the longstanding priority has been to invest in improvements to the larger parks which are accessible to a wider number of local people. It is expected that significant funding to be directed to Parr Fold but we regularly name more than one local site to increase flexibility.

£170,570 Sports Pitch contribution – Improvements to Wharton Playing Fields changing rooms and pitches.

Comments from Councillors – There is a difference of opinion on whether the monies should be spent on the sports pitch between Laburnum and Hawthorn Avenue within Walkden South or Wharton Playing Fields within Little Hulton.

Page 10 Conclusion – This contribution is required by Sport England as mitigation for the loss of the former St. George’s playing fields to avoid an objection, as detailed in the officer report. Wharton Playing Fields have been identified as a local priority in the Salford Playing Pitch Strategy & Action Plan and the directing S106 monies towards this project has been specifically discussed with Sport England and was a key consideration in their decision not to object to the application. Therefore Wharton Playing Fields needs to be specifically named in the legal agreement and this necessary to make the development acceptable.

£150,000 - Public Realm contribution – To direct some or all of the monies towards either improvements to the Ellenbrook loop line as it heads towards the guided bus way and/or improved connections to the site including works to improve pubic rights of way.

Comments from Councillors: There are no objections to where public realm monies are to be spent. A request has been made that this is to be spent specifically be for lighting along to the loopline from Hilton Lane to the Vantage bus stop off Newearth Road.

Conclusion - Lighting for the loopline has been explored previously and is very costly by traditional means, the tree cover also prevents widespread use of solar lighting. To provide lighting on a short section as suggested is not considered to be beneficial as the consistent approach is that the majority of the route would have no lighting.

£581,011 Education contribution - To increase capacity to an existing or new primary school(s) within Pupil Planning Area 1 (Walkden North and Little Hulton) and/or Pupil Planning Area 2 Boothstown, Worsley & Ellenbrook.

Comments from Councillors - There is support for monies to be spent local to the development and not in Worsley or Boothstown. There was a request that monies should be spent on Hilton Lane Primary and St Andrew's. The was also a comment that the monies should be pooled with other S106 education contributions and a new primary school to be provided on the old St. George’s site.

Conclusion – The site sits on the Boundary of Pupil Planning Area 1 and 2 which do not follow ward boundaries. Education colleagues have requested that both areas are named so that there is less restriction when assessing the need for primary places. Wherever the need is, as a result of the development, the funding can then follow. Both Hilton Lane and St Andrews fall within these pupil planning areas. If we limit to one school planning area and that is not where the need is then we risk losing the funding altogether.

£10,000 – Walkden Train Station contribution – cycle parking facilities to serve commuters using the station.

Comments from Councillors – One view is that the Councillors are happy for the additional monies to be directed towards cycle parking but needs to ensure that this contribution does not get wasted. Another point of view is that the contribution is too small and we should be securing a significant amount of monies and this should be directed towards the park and ride. Questions have been asked about the monies TfGM have already invested in cycle parking at the station and whether the £10,000 from the Burgess Farm development for cycle parking has been spent.

Conclusion – This contribution will be pooled towards additional cycling parking at the station. The £10,000 will be added to the £10,000 from the Burgess Farm development that has not yet been spent, and potentially other contributions including grant funding from TfGM. In respect of the amount of money secured and it being directed towards the park and ride; S106 monies need to be reasonable in scale and kind, given the adjacent housing development for more dwellings than proposed in this application provided a sum of £10,000 towards such improvements it is considered that the £10,000 being secured is fair and reasonable in accordance with the NPPF.

£48,000 Newearth Road and Hilton Lane Mini Roundabout – Highway infrastructure improvement scheme to improve the pedestrian / cycle facilities.

Comments from Councillors – Request has been made to signalise the mini roundabout near the Co-Op as many residents say traffic accumulates on Newearth Rd because people travelling from Mosley Common to the

Page 11 East Lancs get priority. A request has also been made to provide crossings on Manchester Road to improve pedestrian safety.

Conclusion – The development is only predicted to generate 5 and 6 two-way movement during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Therefore, it would not be considered appropriate to request the developer to contribute to such a scheme.

The Council is currently reviewing pedestrian crossing provision on Manchester Road west of the Cleggs Lane junction in Little Hulton but this is not in the vicinity of this site. The section of Manchester Road East between Hilton Lane and Bridgewater Road (circa 760m length) has 5 set of controlled crossing facilities and 1 informal crossing point which is considered to be sufficient.

The proximity of the Newearth Road junction to the site and the assumed increase in movements through it, whether these be pedestrian, cycle or vehicular, make this the most appropriate junction at which to implement improvements. The assumed increase in activity here, as a result of the development, is linked to the routes likely to be taken to the train station, Walkden centre, Worsley leisure centre etc.

£9,000 – Traffic Calming – Installation of traffic calming features to the north of the railway bridge

Comments from Councillors – Councillors have been dealing with concerns about vehicle speeds on Hilton Lane for a long time. Officers have previously told ward Councillors that there are no further measures that can be implemented and that this is now a police matter. The Councillors are questioning what has changed?

Conclusion – The contribution provides opportunity to enhance the traffic calming within the vicinity of the development. The proposal includes removal of 2 sets of speeds cushions to be replaced with 3 sets and provides opportunity to review the design and implement them to current standards.

£7,000 Ecology contribution – Habitat creation work to support the butterfly population at Blackleach Country Park.

Comments from Councillors – It is noted that Councillors would like to see a scheme which better matches the displacement of the wildlife currently living on the site but are not against making Blackleach more appropriate for butterflies.

Conclusion – On site ecology mitigation is being provided by the inclusion of a buffer zone around the site boundaries and also conditions for landscape creation and management are proposed. The off-site mitigation is considered to be appropriate to mitigate the impacts of the development to the satisfaction of GMEU.

Affordable Housing – 20% affordable housing to be provided onsite. This equates to 42 units.

Comments from Councillors – Questions have been raised as to whether the provision of on-site affordable housing is appropriate for this site, given house prices in the area. Also questions as to whether it would be better to take a contribution to build truly affordable homes in the Walkden and Little Hulton area.

Response - The NPPF states that where a need for affordable housing is identified, planning policies should specify the type of affordable housing required, and expect it to be met on-site unless an alternative form of affordable housing delivery is robustly justified. The planning obligations SPD is fully consistent with this. As part of this planning application the developer and LPA have worked to develop an appropriate on site affordable housing scheme which complies with local policy, and the definition of what is affordable housing in the NPPF (which includes affordable homes for rent).

Whilst comments from the local Councillors are noted for the reasons as outlined above it is considered that the contributions identified above mitigate the anticipated impacts of the development. The contributions meet the tests as outlined in the NPPF that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.

Conditions

The following conditions have been updated to reference the amended site plan and the updated highway plan removing the speed cushion near to the site entrance:

Page 12 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Planning Layout BHM091/PL01 Rev AG Hilton Lane, Worsley All House Types submitted on 11th March 2019 Secondary Package Substation Brick Built with Roof Variants Rev B Proposed Traffic Calming Measures 42245/5501/027 Rev A

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. Prior to development commencing on the allotments and notwithstanding the details as shown on plan BHM091/PL01 Rev AG, full details of the allotments including layout, car parking, associated infrastructure and boundary treatments together with a timetable for delivery shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The allotments shall be implemented and made available for use in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and to mitigate the impacts of development in accordance with DEV5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the Planning Obligation SPD.

9. Prior to the occupation of plots 1 to 8, the 3m high acoustic fence shall be installed as shown on site layout drawing BHM091/BT01 Rev AG. The fence shall have a minimum density of 20kg/m2 and constructed of a material with no holes or openings. Once erected the fence shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with policy EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Additional Representations

Since the report was published additional letters of objection have been received, two of which are from residents who have not previously commented on the planning application. Therefore, objections have been received from a total of 54 properties. The majority of the issues raised in these letters have been raised previously and been addressed in the published report. Additional matters not previously raised are summarised and considered below:

The guided bus way has reduced capacity on the East Lancs Road and also Walkden Railway Station has had funding withdrawn therefore local transport facilities have not been improved for the area

Response – The recent application to the DfT’s Access for All programme by TfGM, would have secured a match funding allowance to contribute towards the delivery of a Park & Ride at Walkden Station. The Access for All application for Walkden was unsuccessful on this occasion. The provision of a Park & Ride facility at Walkden Station is a priority for Salford City Council, and the city council is currently working with TfGM to identify and secure potential suitable funding sources to progress the delivery of the scheme.

Newearth Road does not adequately cope with the current increase in traffic. What impact will the improvement works have on future traffic flow. A zebra crossing is required at the mini-roundabout.

Response – The proposals for the roundabout, although in draft form, includes a zebra crossing. To be clear the improvements are to improve pedestrian / cycle facilities at the roundabout this proposal will not increase capacity for vehicles.

In light of the ‘Greater Manchester Clean Air Plan’ why is there still a vast number of approvals of new build planning applications and sale of council owned plots of land; adding thousands of extra cars to the road network which will not help to reduced pollution targets.

Response – The air quality impacts of the scheme have been given due consideration in the officers report.

Existing residents are moving out of the area as a result of the over development, traffic congestion etc.

Response – Noted

Page 13 There is no coordinated / collaborated efforts are made between neighbouring councils to consider the impact on proposed and approved build sites that are in close proximity.

Response – The planning application does take into account culmative impacts of the development and this accounts for developments in neighbouring authorities.

The continuation of a free VH2 shuttle bus that literally parks up on Hilton Lane empty 99% of the day is nonsense.

Response - The section 106 heads of term was worded so that any monies secured could be directed to fund additional routes. This has been updated further to provide more flexibility as discussed above.

There is still no updated traffic / highways information, nor is the Ecology / Habitat report up to date, to include information regarding the inclusion of protected species (Barn Owl).

Response – There has been no requirement for the applicant to update either the highway or ecology information submitted with the application. Both the Local Highway Authority and Greater Manchester Ecology Unit respectively consider the information submitted to be sufficient to make their recommendation on the scheme.

There is a lack of recognition of the already approved application 19/73625/REM and this has not been considered in this application, resulting in 3 entrances being within close proximity of each other.

Response – The submission of 19/73625/REM has been discussed in the panel report for the meeting on the 4th July 2019. This application is being considered by the Local Planning Authority, however the site does benefit from outline consent and therefore access arrangements for this site have been given due consideration in the determination of this application.

The site should be accessed via the Burgess Farm Development

Response – This matter has been discussed in the panel report for the meeting on the 4th July 2019.

Bellway have been exposed on numerous occasions over fire safety issues.

Response – In respect of fire safety the site layout is considered to be acceptable for emergency vehicles access. In respect of the materials used in the proposed dwellings this is a matter which will be considered through Building Regulations and as such is not a material planning issue.

Other Councils are rejecting planning applications based on the attainment of housing supply; quoting an example in Wokingham where this was debated at the panel meeting.

Response – The city council’s most up to date 5 year supply position is that there is an 11.7 year supply of deliverable sites for new housing – this is in line with the requirement of paragraph 73 of the NPPF. The city council cannot simply refuse planning applications because a 5 year supply has been identified, it has to continue to maintain a 5 year supply on an annual basis and grant planning permissions for sustainable development.

The Department of Education has revealed plans for the former site of St George’s is to be used for a free school for up to 750 pupils in Walkden. Whilst the former school may not have utilised the grounds the aforementioned application is based upon, the DoE may well have precedent plans for the proposed field.

Response – Colleagues in Education have confirmed that the playing fields on this site have been declared surplus to education use. The St George's site on Parsonage Drive was retained for education use. Therefore they are no longer connected sites.

Page 14 UPDATE FOLLOWING DEFERRAL OF APPLICATION ON 9TH MAY 2019

Members will recall that this application was defferred when considered at the planning panel meeting on the 9th May 2019. The minutes from that meeting state that the application was

Deferred in order for (a) the traffic implications of the development to be considered further and for clarification to be provided on the accuracy of the traffic data used to inform the Traffic Assessment, and (b) further discussions to take place with the applicant and Ward Councillors in relation to the mitigation proposed as part of the Section 106 obligation.

Traffic Implications

Background -

In respect of the traffic data, as stated in the officer report presented to planning panel on the 9th May, the Transport Assessment (TA) originally submitted in supoort of the application was updated with a Techical Note (TN) dated 11th March 2019.

The use of historic survey information within the Transport Assessment which accompanied the planning application was questioned at Planning Panel.

To clarify, this was questioned by TfGM and the Local Highway Authority (LHA) during the assessment of the planning application and as a result, new surveys were carried out on Tuesday 26th February 2019. New surveys were conducted at the following junctions:-

 Manchester Road / Hilton Lane signal junction;  Newearth Road / Hilton Lane mini-roundabout junction; and  Burgess Way / Hilton Lane priority junction.

The Technical Note also addressed the following:-

 Minor amendments made to capacity assessment model; and  Safety concerns at the proposed access junction.

This Techical Note provided the LPA and TfGM with up to date travel modeling infromation to enable a full assessment to be made of the application. Therefore when this application was presented to members on the 9th May the traffic data was considered to be accurate and suitably robust. In light of this, following the deferal of the application by planning panel, no additional information has been requested from the applicant.

However, for clarity, the traffic impacts of the development are set out again below:

Survey Data -

The latest surveys have proved that traffic growth in this area has not been to the extent assumed within the original Transport Assessment which applied factors (using industry standard methodology) to historic traffic surveys (2014 and 2016) to derive an indication of likely 2019 traffic flows.

Table 1 below summarises the total traffic forecast and actually passing through the junction, and the difference, at each survey location in the AM Peak, whilst Table 2 contains the PM peak figures:-

Table 1 – Forecast 2019 flows compared to Actual 2019 – AM Peak AM Peak Location Forecast 2019 Actual 2019 Difference % Change (contained in TA) (contained in TN) Manchester Road/ Hilton Lane Junction 1,849 1,739 -110 -6% Newearth Road/ Hilton Lane Junction 1,862 1,562 -316 - Hilton Lane ATC – East of site access Not summarised Not summarised -28 -

Page 15 Table 2 – Forecast 2019 flows compared to Actual 2019 – PM Peak AM Peak Location Forecast 2019 Actual 2019 Difference % Change (contained in TA) (contained in TN) Manchester Road/ Hilton Lane Junction 2,019 1,849 -168 -8.5% Newearth Road/ Hilton Lane Junction 1,891 1,848 -42 - Hilton Lane ATC – East of site access Not summarised Not summarised -30 -

The Technical Note subsequently concluded that the Manchester Road/ Hilton Lane assessment need not be revisited as the original assessment contained within the Transport Assessment showed the junction to operate within capacity in the future year assessment (2023) based on the higher base flows (historic survey data (2014) growthed).

The Newearth Road/ Hilton Lane junction assessment was revisited in the Technical Note on the basis that use of the 2019 traffic survey data would present a more realistic indication of the operation of the junction compared to the assessment contained within the Transport Assessment, which was based on growth historic (2016) survey data.

Trip Generation –

The Burgess Way/ Hilton Lane survey, undertaken in February 2019, enables a comparison of the assumed demand for the proposed development contained within the Transport Assessment (derived using a national survey database (TRICS)) against the demand derived using data from the comparable sites of Dukes Manor and Worsley Fold contained within the Technical Note.

Table 3 below summarises the findings of that exercise:-

Table 3 – Trip Generation comparison for the 209 dwellings proposed. Arrivals Departures TA Figure TN Figure Difference TA Figure TN Figure Difference AM Peak 25 15 -10 72 73 +1 PM Peak 80 80 0 51 31 -20

The above clearly shows that development trip forecasts derived from the local survey data are generally lower than those contained within the Transport Assessment which were based on information obtained from the database of national traffic surveys.

The updated assessment of the Newearth Road/ Hilton Lane junction within the Technical Note reflects the latest trip generation forecasts.

Percentage Impact -

A method of considering the impact of a development on an existing highway network is to consider the magnitude of change in traffic flow resulting from a development proposal. Table 4 below shows the percentage increase in traffic based on forecast 2023 traffic flows.

The distribution of the development traffic is based on the 2019 survey of the Burgess Way/ Hilton Lane which is contained and also used in the Technical Note.

Table 4 – Development Trips Route Assignment and Percentage Impact Weekday AM Peak Hr Weekday PM Peak Hr Route Additional 2-Way Movement Additional 2-Way Movement % % Trips Vehicle / min Trips Vehicle / min Change Change 1 veh. every 1 veh. every Manchester Road / Hilton Lane 25 144 secs +1.4% 35 103 secs +1.8% signal junction (2.4 minutes) (1.7 minutes)

Page 16 Approx.1 veh Newearth Road / Hilton Lane every 60 1 veh. every 62 +3.8% 76 +3.9% mini-roundabout junction secs (1 47 seconds minute) It should be noted that these do differ slightly from those contained in the previous panel report as 2023 Base data has * been used rather than the 2019 data contained within the Transport Assessment.

When considering the acceptability of any planning application in terms of its impact on the highway network, due regard must be given to national planning policy which states (National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 109) the following:-

“Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.”

Quantifying the magnitude of change and number of additional vehicles on the network per minute associated with the development allows an opinion to be formed on the impact and whilst ‘severe’ is not defined in the NPPF a judgment can be made.

The following appraises in greater detail the predicted impact of the development on those junctions contained within Table 4 above.

Manchester Road/ Hilton Lane Signal Junction Capacity Assessments –

Tables 5 and 6 below summarise the results of the 2023 assessment, AM and PM peaks respectively, carried out for the purpose of the Technical Note. For clarification, the growthed 2014 survey data and original trip generation assumptions, which are higher than those in the Technical Note, were used for this assessment ensuring a robust assessment.

Table 5 – Manchester Road / Hilton Lane Signal Junction Assessment – AM Peak 2023 Base + Manchester Road / Hilton 2023 Base Net Difference Development Lane Signal Junction - DOS DOS Av. Delay Per Veh AM Peak Queue Queue Queue (%) (%) (sec / veh) Ellesmere St 9.3 1 9.0 1 0 0 Manchester Rd East (E) 61.3 9 62.2 9 0 1 Hilton Lane 76.0 13 78.3 14 1 1 Manchester Rd East (W) 76.8 19 80.0 21 2 3

Table 6 – Manchester Road / Hilton Lane Signal Junction Assessment – PM Peak

2023 Base + 2023 Base Net Difference Manchester Road / Hilton Development Lane Signal Junction - Mean Mean Mean DOS DOS Av. Delay Per Veh PM Peak Max Max Max (%) (%) (sec / veh) Queue Queue Queue Ellesmere St 7.0 1 7.0 1 0 1 Manchester Rd East (E) 69.9 12 69.9 12 0 0 Hilton Lane 83.3 12 89.4 14 2 13 Manchester Rd East (W) 82.1 24 89.5 25 1 2

It is clear from the above that the impact of the development would be minimal at this junction.

Newearth Road/ Hilton Lane Mini Roundabout Junction Capacity Assessments –

This assessment has been revisited from that contained within the Transport Assessment given that it was shown to operate significantly over capacity. Despite using the lower, more recent, traffic survey data and locally derived trip forecasts for the proposed development the junction is still shown in the Technical Note to operate over capacity in PM peak at present.

Page 17 Tables 7 and 8 below show how the junction is predicted to operate in 2023, both without (2023 Base) and with (2023 Base + Dev) the proposed development, in the AM and PM peaks respectively.

Table 7 – Newearth Road/ Hilton Lane Signal Junction Assessment – AM Peak

2023 Base + 2023 Base Net Difference Newearth Road / Hilton Development Road Mini Roundabout – Mean Mean Mean Av. Delay Per Veh AM Peak RFC Max RFC Max Max (sec / veh) Queue Queue Queue Bridgewater Road 0.89 6 0.99 10 4 58 Park Road 0.41 1 0.42 1 0 0 Newearth Road 0.75 3 0.76 3 0 1 Hilton Lane 0.84 5 0.91 9 4 16

Table 8 – Newearth Road/ Hilton Lane Signal Junction Assessment – PM Peak

2023 Base + Newearth Road / Hilton 2023 Base Net Difference Development Road Mini Roundabout - Max Max Max Av. Delay Per Veh PM Peak RFC RFC Queue Queue Queue (sec / veh) Bridgewater Road 1.08 29 1.13 38 9 52 Park Road 1.15 47 1.23 72 25 177 Newearth Road 0.87 7 0.90 8 1 7 Hilton Lane 0.53 1 0.56 1 0 1

The capacity model produced for this junction is considered to be overly robust in that the approach adopted to input traffic flow assumes a ‘worst case’ by simulating a peak within the peak. The survey data shows the profile of traffic within the peak to be relatively flat in reality. It is therefore felt that the results contained within the Technical Note indicate queues and delay in excess of what would likely be experienced if the development were to go ahead.

For the purposes of allowing ‘without’ and ‘with’ development scenarios to be compared the models are, however, considered satisfactory, though it has to be borne in mind that the reliability the modelling software does become questionable as the traffic passing through the junction exceeds its capacity (i.e. the junction becomes oversaturated).

It is acknowledged, from results contained within the Technical Note, that this junction is operating at its capacity at present (2019) and that this will only worsen if traffic volumes continue to increase. Salford City Council have considered capacity improvements at this junction in the past, however, solutions are limited due to the lack of available land surrounding the junction to make meaningful improvements.

Providing increased capacity can also have an adverse impact on an area and adjacent junctions by facilitating suppressed demand/ encouraging the reassignment of traffic on neighbouring routes to the one made more attractive by the creation of increased capacity. Mindful of this, all Local Highway Authorities are required to consider solutions which reduce traffic as well as those that simply accommodate it.

In this instance, it is considered that mitigation should comprise of measures to encourage trips by non-car modes, in accordance with UDP policies A2, A5, ST5 and DES2, rather than facilitate the predicted demand. The following summarises why the Local Highway Authority consider the predicted impact of the development on this junction to be acceptable:-

 The percentage increase in traffic through the junction, as a result of the development, is predicted to be low (3.8% AM Peak and 3.9% in the PM Peak) with no allowance made within these figures for reductions in car use resulting from the agreed mitigation package;  At most times of the day the junction will operate within capacity;

Page 18  The increase in traffic, as a percentage change, cannot be considered ‘severe,’ in accordance with national planning policy tests, and as such a refusal on highway impact grounds would likely be challengeable;  The modelling approach adopted is thought to over-estimate the traffic passing through the junction at certain times within the peak, presenting results that can be considered ‘robust’ (worse than likely to occur);  The developer need only mitigate for the impact that this development proposal is considered to have on the highway network. It is not appropriate to request that existing capacity problems are solved, or general traffic growth mitigated by this development; and  On balance, it is considered that the agreed mitigation package, which totals £492,500, is proportionate to the adverse impact that the development is likely to have on the highway network.

Site Access -

With reference to drawing 42245/5501/027, the developer intends to provide a singular vehicular access point off Hilton Lane. The new access includes a 6.75m wide carriageway with 2m wide footways and tactile paving on the proposed site access arm and across Hilton Lane immediate west of the access.

The junction incorporates traffic calming features in the form of a raised junction table, plus speed cushions between the proposed access point and the access to the Burgess Farm development.

Although visibility splays in accordance with the Manual for Streets requirement based on Hilton Lane’s 20mph speed limit have been indicated on the drawing (2.4m x 25m), checks have been made to determine if greater distances can be achieved. Visibility splays in accordance with 30mph approach speeds can be achieved to the east (2.4m x 43m, if accepting an offset of 500m from the kerb) and nearer 40mph approach speeds to the west (2.4m x 63m).

Actual 85th percentile speeds based on the ATC data obtained on the 26th February 2019 were 30.8mph eastbound and 31.7mph westbound. With the proposed traffic calming identified above and the change in characteristics of this section of Hilton Lane it is considered that these speeds will reduce to closer to the signed speed of the road, giving no rise to safety concerns with the proposed access.

Notwithstanding this, since the application was last presented to planning panel, the traffic calming measures have been reviewed being mindful of members and residents’ concerns. The proposed set of speed cushions to the east of the site entrance has been removed to reduce additional clutter on the road. The Local Highway Authority consider the existing raised junction plateau that serves Burgess Way combined with proposed raised junction plateau for the application site would be sufficient to manage and reduce westbound traffic speed.

Instead, the applicant has agreed to provide a S106 contribution of £9,000 to fund the relocation/ enhancement (replace 2 sets of speed cushion with 3) of traffic calming features on Hilton Lane between west of the railway bridge and Trent Drive to further reduce the eastbound approach speed.

Further, Road Safety Audits will be carried out at the relevant stages of the design process to ensure that the junction is implemented to current design standards and is therefore safe.

Recommendation –

The Local Highway Authority opinion remains, as that previously reported, that the information submitted by the applicant is up to date and robust. The results of the surveys, as set out above, demonstrate that the impact upon the highway network is not considered to be severe in terms of the NPPF. It is also considered that the impact on the highway network considers the worst case scenario as the package of Section 106 highway contributions which promote sustainable modes of transport will help to lower the use of the private car. The S106 highway package includes:

 £275,880 towards improvement public transport provision in the vicinity of the site.  £10,000 towards improved cycle parking facilities at Walkden Train Station.  £48,000 towards a highway scheme, delivered by the Council / TfGM to provide enhance pedestrian / cyclists infrastructure improvements to the existing Hilton Lane / Bridgewater Road / Newearth Road mini- roundabout junction.

Page 19  £9,000 towards enhancing the traffic calming measures (relocate existing 2 sets and provide a 3rd) on Hilton Lane, west of the railway bridge.  £150,000 towards public realm improvement to either improve the local loop line and local PRoW, plus future maintenance of PRoW 135 and 136.

It is therefore considered that the development complies with the requirements of UDP policies A2, A5 and A8 and the NPPF.

Access to Application Site via Burgess Farm Development

Members also discussed why this site is not accessed via the exitsing Burgess Farm development. This route would rely on third party land and gaining consent for access across it, this route was not pursued by the applicant as there was a suitable access directly into the site off Hilton Lane. The City’s Highway Officer has also confirmed that should traffic from this development be directed through the access at Hilton Lane/Burgress Way the number of traffic movements through one junction would require the junction to be signalised, which would have an adverse impact on the flow of traffic along Hilton Lane. It is therefore considered that the access as proposed for this development is considered to be the best solution.

Ecology

Members will note that at the time the application came to panel in May there was an objection to the scheme from Greater Machester Ecology Unit (GMEU) on the grounds that the scheme will deliver insufficient semi- natural habitat to provide satisfactory mitigation for the loss of a large open area of greenspace that currently functions as a wildlife foraging and movement resource. Since the application was deferred the applicants have engaged with the LPA and GMEU. The site layout has been amended to increase the width of the greenspace along the eastern/southern boundary of the site. This has been achieved through the reconfiguration of dwellings and access roads to them. GMEU have reviewed the amended layout and confirm that the changes to the corridor widths are relatively small but they are meaningful in context. GMEU note that there is still a pinch point along this greenspace but consider that when considered in context, this short length would not be seen as a significant barrier to movement.

GMEU have given weight to the fact that the allotments in the south west of the site will likely not represent a barrier to species movement, noting that allotments can be very good for wildlife if managed appropriately. GMEU also note that additional landscaping is possible across the wider site that could facilitate species movement with gardens through the site that could be made ‘porous’ by appropriately designing plot boundaries.

In addition to the on-site works, the applicant has agreed to provide a sum of £7,000 towards off site habitat creation work within Blackleach Country Park to support the butterfly population at the Country Park. GMEU have confirmed that, although the project is primarily concerned with butterflies and not amphibians, Blackleach Country Park SBI is known for its populations of amphibians and the diversification of grassland will benefit amphibians in addition to invertebrates.

In the published report for the 9th May 2019 panel meeting, condition 19 required the submission of a Landscape Creation and Management Scheme. Whilst this matter can still be dealt with by condition, it is felt that the wording of this condition should be updated to provide greater detail as recommended by GMEU. Therefore condition 19 will now read:

No landscaping works, pursuant to condition 18 (landscaping scheme), shall take place until a Landscape Creation and Management Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall include: 1) A written response which details how the proposed landscape scheme takes account of the requirement for new landscaping to facilitate species movement through the site. 2) A management plan to provide details of Access and Landscape Management within the buffer zones / landscape corridors The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and the approved timing / phasing of implementation as agreed under condition 18(b) or within 18 months of first occupation and retained thereafter.

Page 20 Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and to support protected species in accordance with the policy DES9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

In light of the amended layout, the opportunities for on site for landscaping creation and management and the off-site works GEMU have withdrawn their objection to the scheme on nature conservation grounds.

Amended Layout

The site layout has been amended for ecology reasons, as discussed above. Also amendments have been made to reorientate plots 1 and 2 which sit to the west of the site access. There are no objections either on design or amenity grounds to these being re-sitied.

Archeology

Condition 4 as drafted required a scheme to be submitted for the timing/phasing of archaeological works on site. The applicants have updated the WSI to include this scheme confirming that all archaeological works on site will be carried out to the satisfaction of the GMAAS prior to commencement of development. This is deemed to be acceptable and therefore condition 4 has been updated to reflect this position and reads:

4. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation for a Programme of Archaeological Work, P100021.01.1 vs 2.0 dated 26 March 2019.

Reason: To record and advance understanding of heritage assets impacted on by the development and to make information about the archaeological heritage interest publicly accessible in accordance with CH8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Further Objections

Given the changes in layout, as discussed above, neighbouring residents have been notified of amended plans. An additional 4 letters of objection have been received, one of which is from residents who have not previously commented on the planning application. Therefore, objections have been received from a total of 52 properties. The majority of the issues raised in these letters have been raised previously and been addressed in the published report. Additional matters not previously raised are summarised and considered below:

- There is no updated Transport Assessment to address the reason for the application being deferred.

Response – As discussed above the detail with the TA as updated during the course of the application with the TN is fit for purpose.

- Questions whether the S106 highway package mitigates to impacts of the increased traffic as a result of this development.

Response – As detailed above the S106 package in respect of highway mitigation is considered to be necessary and proportionate.

- There are not details of the boundary treatment details along the southern boundary of the site.

Response – Along the southern boundary the existing hedgerow will be retained with supplementary planting where appropriate.

- The letter was dated 13th June yet the plans are recorded as the 14th June.

Response – A notification letter was sent out on the 13th June 2019 following the receipt of amended plans. A further updated plan was submitted by the application on 14th June 2019, which sought to change an element of footpath outside plot 209. Given the minor nature of the change and that it was submitted within 24 hours of the notification letters being sent it was considered that further notification letters were not required. The amended plans have been clearly marked up on public access to residents are clear which plan is the latest.

Page 21 - Resident has been unable to lodge their comments online and they consider this to be a ploy to discourage valid objection.

Response – There have been no reported technical issues with the Council’s webpage. All comments received will be given due consideration.

- The attempts by Salford City Council to get plans for this development approved by doing the minimal amount of consultation as they can get away with.

Response – Consultation with external consultees and neighbouring residents has been undertaken in accordance with local and national planning guidance.

- Residents have not been notified of a reserve matters application which has been submitted for Burgess Farm.

Response – Since this application was presented to planning panel a reserve matters application has been submitted for adjacent Burgess Farm site, which already benefits from outline planning permission. The application reference number is 19/73625/REM and the application seeks approval for appearance, landscaping, scale and layout for the erection of 9 dwellings pursuant to outline planning consent 17/71118OUT. Neighbouring residents will be notified of the planning application is accordance with local and national procedures.

Planning Obligations

The application was deferred in May for further discussion on the S106 package. Following the panel meeting the financial contributions have been amended to include traffic calming measures and also an ecology contribution as discussed above. In addition to this, the Shuttle Bus contribution has been amended in consultation with colleagues within the City’s Transport Infrastructure Team. The wording has been made more flexible to enable a wider range of options to be delivered rather than the shuttle bus in response to concerns raised by Councillors. In addition, the Walkden Train Station contribution has been reworded and made more precise confirming that this contribution will be pooled with other S106s contributions to deliver cycle parking at the station. It is considered that the contributions identified mitigate the impact of the development. The local ward councillors have been notified of these amendments and a number of comments have been received which are being considered. An update will be provided through an amendment sheet.

Recommendation

Planning permission be granted subject to the following planning conditions and that:

1) The Strategic Director of Environment and Community Safety be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure the following heads of terms:

A financial contribution of to be directed towards:

 £275,880 Bus Service contribution – Improvements to bus services in the area, to improve accessibility from the development to key interchanges and the wider high frequency bus network.  £252,921 Open space contribution – Improvements to Parr Fold Park and/or Peel Park.  £170,570 Sports Pitch contribution – Improvements to Wharton Playing Fields changing rooms and pitches.  £150,000 - Public Realm contribution – To direct some or all of the monies towards either improvements to the loop line as it heads towards the guided bus way and/or improved connections to the site including works to improve pubic rights of way.  £581,011 Education contribution - To increase capacity to an existing or new primary school(s) within Pupil Planning Area 1 (Walkden North and Little Hulton) and/or Pupil Planning Area 2 Boothstown, Worsley & Ellenbrook.  £10,000 – Walkden Train Station contribution – cycle parking facilities to serve commuters using the station.  Affordable Housing – 20% affordable housing to be provided onsite. This equates to 42 units.

Page 22  £48,000 Newearth Road and Hilton Lane Mini Roundabout – Highway infrastructure improvement scheme to improve the pedestrian / cycle facilities.  £9,000 – Traffic Calming – Installation of traffic calming features to the north of the railway bridge  £7,000 Ecology contribution – Habitat creation work to support the butterfly population at Blackleach Country Park.

2) That the applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such a legal agreement;

3) The authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued (subject to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal agreement;

For the avoidance of doubt an updated list of conditions is provided below:

Conditions

1. The development must be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Planning Layout BHM091/PL01 Rev V Hilton Lane, Worsley All House Types submitted on 11th March 2019 Secondary Package Substation Brick Built with Roof Variants Rev B Proposed Traffic Calming Measures 42245/5501/027

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. Prior to development commencing on the allotments and notwithstanding the details as shown on plan BHM091/PL01 Rev S, full details of the allotments including layout, car parking, associated infrastructure and boundary treatments together with a timetable for delivery shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The allotments shall be implemented and made available for use in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

4. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation for a Programme of Archaeological Work, P100021.01.1 vs 2.0 dated 26 March 2019.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: Any work on the site has the potential to damage archaeological assets and so the programme of works is required before any development commences.

5. Prior to development commencing (except for demolition and enabling works) the applicant shall submit and agree with the Local Planning Authority in writing a contaminated land remediation strategy. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the duly approved remediation strategy or such varied remediation strategy as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to ensure the safe development of the site in the interests of the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with Policy EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 23 Reason for pre-commencement condition: Any works on site could affect any contamination which may be present and hinder the effective remediation of any contamination causing a risk to the health of future occupiers and harm to the environment, hence the initial investigation must be carried out before works commence

6. Pursuant to condition 5; and prior to first use or occupation a verification report, which validates that all remedial works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed with the Local Planning Authority, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7. No development shall take place until a detailed scheme of remedial works for the treatment for the mine entries on site, any mitigation measures deemed necessary to ensure the stability of the offsite mine entries and remedial works for the shallow coal workings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with approved scheme and prior to the occupation of any dwellings or group of dwellings as agreed in writing with the LPA, a verification report relating to those dwellings shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The Verification Report shall validate that all remedial works undertaken were completed in accordance with the details agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with paragraphs 178 and 179 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: The undertaking of remedial and mitigatory measures, prior to the commencement of development, is considered to be necessary to ensure the safety and stability of the development.

8. The acoustic mitigation scheme (including glazing and passive ventilation requirements) as described in the submitted acoustic report (Noise Assessment, November 2018, ref: R1421-REP01-JW, Red Acoustics) shall be installed. Prior to occupation of a particular plot requiring acoustic mitigation as identified in (Noise Assessment, November 2018, ref: R1421-REP01-JW, Red Acoustics) a Site Completion Report relating to that plot indicating that all necessary noise attenuation measures identified in the assessment have been implemented shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and retained thereafter

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of existing, neighbouring and/or future occupants of the development hereby approved in accordance with policy EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

9. Prior to the occupation of plots 1 to 8, the 3m high acoustic fence shall be installed as shown on site layout drawing BHM091/BT01 Rev G. The fence shall have a minimum density of 20kg/m2 and constructed of a material with no holes or openings. Once erected the fence shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with policy EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

10. Prior to the commencement of the development, with the exception of site clearance and remediation, plans showing the existing and proposed ground levels across the site and details of proposed retaining features (there position, dimensions and construction specification) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted details.

Reason -To enable any proposed changes of level to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of policies DES1 and A4 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: The levels of the site need to be understood prior to works commencing on site as it could affect how ground works are planned and carried out.

Page 24 11. No development shall take place, including any works of excavation or demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall include:

(i) the times of construction activities on site which, unless agreed otherwise as part of the approved Statement, shall be limited to between 8am-6pm Monday to Friday and 9am-2pm Saturday only (no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays). Quieter activities which are carried out inside buildings such as electrical works, plumbing and plastering may take place outside of agreed working times so long as they do not result in significant disturbance to neighbouring occupiers; (ii) the spaces for and management of the parking of site operatives and visitors vehicles; (iii) the storage and management of plant and materials (including loading and unloading activities); (iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoardings including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; (v) measures to prevent the deposition of dirt on the public highway; (vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition/construction; (vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition/construction works; (viii) measures to minimise disturbance to any neighbouring occupiers from noise and vibration, including from any piling activity; (ix) measures to prevent the pollution of watercourses; (x) a community engagement strategy which explains how local neighbours will be kept updated on the construction process, key milestones, and how they can report to the site manager or other appropriate representative of the developer, instances of unneighbourly behaviour from construction operatives. The statement shall also detail the steps that will be taken when unneighbourly behaviour has been reported. A log of all reported instances shall be kept on record and made available for inspection by the local a planning authority upon request; and (xi) an intended date for the commencement of development and, following commencement, evidence of the material start on site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbours in accordance with policies DES7 and EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the NPPF.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: Any works on site could harm the amenity of neighbouring occupiers if not properly managed so details of the matters set out above must be submitted and agreed in advance of works starting.

12. Prior to occupation each dwelling with off road parking shall be provided with the wiring to facilitate the provision of a single electric vehicle charging point within 3m of the associated vehicle car parking space. The wiring shall be capable of supporting a Type 2 "Fast" charging unit, and wired to a dedicated 30A spur to provide 7KV charging capacity.

Reason: In accordance with paragraph 105 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework, to encourage the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles and ensure the development is sustainable and to safeguard residential amenity, public health and quality of life.

13. The development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the Reasonable Avoidance Measures Method Statement for Great Crested Newts dated 4th February 2019 by Rachel Hacking Ecology.

Reason: To protected species in accordance with the Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

14. The development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the Himalayan Balsam Method Statement dated 4th February 2019 by Rachel Hacking Ecology.

Reason - It is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 to introduce, plant or cause to grow wild any plant listed in Schedule 9 part 2 of the Act.

15. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the drainage strategy as presented in Drainage Strategy, Hilton Lane Worlsey, 30231/SRG March 2019.

Page 25 Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

16. A scheme for the provision of sustainable drainage tree pits (based on the plan 30231/107 within the Drainage Strategy, Hilton Lane Worlsey, 30231/SRG March 2019) and the provision of water butts shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the development being brought into use (or in accordance with a phasing plan which shall first be agreed in writing with the local planning authority) and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To provide betterment in terms of water quality and surface water discharge rates policies EN19 and EN22 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

17. Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application no above ground construction works shall take place until samples or full details of materials to be used externally on the building(s) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials. Only the materials so approved shall be used, in accordance with any terms of such approval.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

18. (a) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the formation of any banks, terraces or other earthworks, hard surfaced areas and materials, boundary treatments, external lighting, planting plans, specifications and schedules (including planting size, species and numbers/densities), existing plants / trees to be retained, a scheme for the supplementary planting of the hedgerow along the southern boundary of the site and a scheme for the timing / phasing of implementation works.

(b) The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme for timing / phasing of implementation or within 18 months of first occupation of the development hereby permitted, whichever is the later.

(c) Any trees or shrubs planted or retained in accordance with this condition which are removed, uprooted, destroyed, die or become severely damaged or become seriously diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its consent in writing to any variation.

Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and the nature of the proposed development and in accordance with Policies DES1 and DES9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

19. No landscaping works, pursuant to condition 18 (landscaping scheme), shall take place until a Landscape Creation and Management Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall include: 1) A written response which details how the proposed landscape scheme takes account of the requirement for new landscaping to facilitate species movement through the site. 2) A management plans to provide details of Access and Landscape Management within the buffer zones / landscape corridors The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and the approved timing / phasing of implementation as agreed under condition 18(b) or within 18 months of first occupation and retained thereafter.

Page 26 Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

20. No development shall be started until all the retained trees as shown at the Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), Drawing No: P.918.17.02 Rev. C, shown at Appendix 2 of the Ascerta Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Report entitled: 'Land at Hilton Lane, Worsley', dated November 2018 within (or overhanging) the site, have been protected using temporary protective fencing. Such protection shall be installed in accordance with the description shown at AMS, Drawing No: P.918.17.02 Rev. C in the positions as shown at AMS, Drawing No: P.918.17.02 Rev. C: and shall remain until all development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such protection.

Reason: To safeguard protected trees and to ensure that adequate provision is made for their protection whilst the development is carried out in accordance with EN12 of the Unitary Development Plan and TD4 of the Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document.

21. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement [AMS, Drawing No: P.918.17.02 Rev. C].

22. The vehicle parking, servicing and other vehicular access arrangements shown on the approved plans to serve the development hereby permitted shall be made available for use prior to the development being brought into use (or in accordance with a phasing plan which shall first be agreed in writing with the local planning authority) and shall be retained thereafter for their intended purpose.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and the free flow of traffic and in accordance with policies A2, A8 and A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

23. Notwithstanding the details submitted within the Travel Plan, the development hereby approved shall not be brought into first occupation until an updated Travel Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

Within six months of the development hereby approved being brought into first occupation, a further, updated Travel Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The agreed Travel Plan shall be implemented and reviewed in accordance with the timetable embodied therein.

Reason: To ensure that the travel arrangements to the development are appropriate and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements in accordance with policies ST14 and A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

24. A scheme for the provision of pedestrian links from the site to the Public Right of Way W135 and W136 together with a timetable for implementation shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The pedestrian links shall be constructed in accordance with the agreed scheme and timetable for implementation and shall remain free from obstruction thereafter.

Reason: To improve pedestrian ensure that the travel arrangements to the development are appropriate and to limit the effects of the increase in travel movements in accordance with policies ST14 and A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

25. No development shall commence until a Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS) for the construction works is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The RAMS should include measures to protect the operation and integrity of operational railway and Network Rail land. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.

Reason - To prevent any piling works and vibration from de-stabilising or impacting the railway in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policy A4.

Page 27 Reason for pre-commencement condition: Any works on site could harm the operation of the railway line if not properly managed so details must be submitted and agreed in advance of works starting.

Notes for Applicant:

1. The applicant is advised that they have a duty to adhere to the regulations of Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 and the current Building Control Regulations with regards to contaminated land. The responsibility to ensure the safe development of land affected by contamination rests primarily with the developer.

2. With respect to gas protection measures the applicant's attention is drawn to BRE 414, Protection Measures for Housing on Gas-Contaminated Sites. In addition the requirements of BS8845:2015 Code of Practice for the design of protective measures for methane and carbon dioxide ground gases for new buildings should be followed for installation and the verification requirements of CIRIA C735 Good Practice on the Testing and Verification of Protection Systems for Buildings against Hazardous Ground Gasses will need to be submitted.

Verification of gas protection systems needs to be undertaken during the construction process, or the applicant may not be able to discharge the condition. This can lead to issues with property searches and / or mortgage at a later time.

3. Ordinary watercourse consent will be required for any works to the watercourse. Refer to https://www.salford.gov.uk/media/388215/ordinary-watercourse-consent.pdf

4. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) makes it an offence (with certain limited exceptions and in the absence of a licence) to intentionally to kill, injure or take any wild bird, or intentionally to damage, take or destroy its nest whilst it is being built or is in use, or to take or destroy its eggs. Further, the Act affords additional protection to specific species of birds listed in Schedule 1 of the Act. In respect of these species it is unlawful to intentionally or recklessly to disturb such a bird whilst it is nest-building or is at or near a nest with eggs or young; or to disturb their dependent young. You are therefore advised to seek the advice of a suitably qualified ecologist before commencing works on site.

5. No vegetation clearance required by the scheme should take place in the optimum period for bird nesting (July to August inclusive) unless nesting birds have been shown to be absent by a suitably qualified person.

6. In respect of condition 7 any mitigation measures proposed shall first be agreed with The Coal Authority's Permitting Team.

7. Under the Coal Industry Act 1994 any intrusive activities, including initial site investigation boreholes, and/or any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings/coal mine entries for ground stability purposes require the prior written permission of The Coal Authority, since such activities can have serious public health and safety implications. Failure to obtain permission will result in trespass, with the potential for court action. In the event that you are proposing to undertake such work in the Forest of Dean local authority area our permission may not be required; it is recommended that you check with us prior to commencing any works. Application forms for Coal Authority permission and further guidance can be obtained from The Coal Authority's website at: https://www.gov.uk/get-a-permit-to-deal-with-a-coal-mine-on-your-property

8. Building over or within the influencing distance of a mine entry (shaft or adit) can be dangerous and has the potential for significant risks to both the development and the occupiers if not undertaken appropriately. The Coal Authority would draw your attention to our adopted policy regarding new development and mine entries: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-on-or-within-the-influencing-distance-of-mine-entries

Page 28 Prior extraction of surface coal requires an Incidental Coal Agreement from The Coal Authority. Further information can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/get-a-licence-for-coal-mining

10. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities dated 29th January 2019.

11. A public sewer crosses the site. Please liaise with United Utilities in relation to building over or diverting the sewer or about requirements for an easement.

12. This permission does not authorise the closure of the public right(s) of way affected by the proposed development which should at all times be maintained unrestricted and available for the free passage of the public.

13. In respect of condition 25 the applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from Network Rail dated 25th April 2019 and the requirements

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AMENDMENT SHEET FOR REPORT TO PANEL ON 9TH MAY 2019

Additional Observations

Further correspondence has been received from Land Law LLP on behalf of Peel Investments noting that the land owner or developer have no right to make the connection to a culvert on Peel’s Land. It notes that their client, Peel Investments, has no obligation to accept these proposed additional flows or the potential maintenance liabilities which such flows could impose. Noting that any attempt to drain into the culvert would constitute an actionable nuisance and trespass which will be met with an immediate application to the court for an injunction.

Following publication of the report further dialogue has taken place with Network Rail in respect of their comments and holding objection due to the proximity of the development to Network Rail assets. They have now withdrawn their objection subject to

1) All surface and foul waters are directed away from the direction of the railway. 2) Network Rail being assured that the proposal will not impact upon the adjacent railway and the culvert under the railway. 3) The Excavations/temporary works/foundation proposals are reviewed and accepted by network rail.

In respects of points 1 and 2 the City’s Drainage engineer has confirmed that all culverts to be diverted are within the site boundary and that the scheme would maintain flows and as such there will be no impact on the railway.

In respect of point 3, and to address Network Rail’s previous comments regarding works on site and the impact on the operational railway, a condition is recommended to secure a Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS), as set out below. Also the reason for condition 10 – land levels has been updated to include reference to the railway. An additional informative as set out below is also recommended.

Reason - To prevent any piling works and vibration from de-stabilising or impacting the railway in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policy A4.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: Any works on site could harm the operation of the railway line if not properly managed so details must be submitted and agreed in advance of works starting.

Page 29 10. Prior to the commencement of the development, with the exception of site clearance and remediation, plans showing the existing and proposed ground levels across the site and details of proposed retaining features (there position, dimensions and construction specification) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted details.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: The levels of the site need to be understood prior to works commencing on site as it could affect how ground works are planned and carried out.

Informative

13. In respect of condition 25 the applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments from Network Rail dated 25th April 2019 and the requirements

Since the report has been published the following conditions have been updated, following comments from the applicant;

Condition 2 has been updated to reference the correct plan and include a highway plan:

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

Condition 3 has been updated to allow flexibility on the delivery of the allotments:

Condition 8 has been updated to be more precise:

Condition 9 has been updated to reference the correct plan:

Page 30 9. Prior to the occupation of plots 1 to 8, the 3m high acoustic fence shall be installed as shown on site layout drawing BHM091/BT01 Rev G. The fence shall have a minimum density of 20kg/m2 and constructed of a material with no holes or openings. Once erected the fence shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with policy EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition 12 has been updated in response to comments from the applicant and conversation with the City’s Environmental Consultant:

Condition 24 has been updated in response to comments from the applicant:

REPORT TO PANEL ON 9TH MAY 2019

Description of Site and Surrounding Area

The application site extends to 6.59ha and is currently grass land, which is partly enclosed by fencing with an established hedge along the southern boundary. The site is currently used for grazing however, prior to this; part of the site accommodated the former St George’s playing fields. A railway line and embankment forms the northern boundary of the site, land to the west and south is being developed for housing and is nearing completion and land to the west is a Site of Biological Importance (SBI) known as Ponds near New Manchester. The site has approximately 18m of frontage at the north east corner onto Hilton Lane. Adjacent to the site entrance fronting Hilton Lane is Burgess Farm which is one of the Council’s locally listed buildings. There are two Public Rights of Way that run around the perimeter of the site (W135 and W136). The site is allocated in the Salford UDP as a wildlife corridor.

Description of Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the erection of up to 209 dwellings and associated works. The proposed dwellings would comprise 123 x three bed and 86 x four bed houses. The development would be in the form of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties. Vehicle access into the site would be taken from Hilton Lane. Within the site there would be two circular access roads leading to shared space/cul-de-sacs. The proposed dwellings would be positioned to front the internal roads and shared spaces within the development.

The proposed dwellings would be either 2, 2½ or 3 storeys in height. The dwellings would have a traditional appearance and would be constructed from brick with tiled roofs. All the dwellings would have rear gardens and across the site 418 car parking spaces will be provided either in-curtilage or within shared parking areas.

The layout plan shows an area to the west of the site which would provide for 15 allotments with ancillary infrastructure.

Page 31 The application is supported by the following documents

- Design and Access Statement - Transport Assessment - Air Quality Assessment - Travel Plan - Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy - Phase 1 Preliminary Site Assessment & Phase 2 Site Investigation - Outline Scope and Specification Stabilisation of Shafts and Shallow Mine Workings - Crime Impact Statement - Habitat Survey - Sustainability Checklist - Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment - Written Scheme of Investigation - Arboricultural Impact Assessment - Noise Study - Planning Statement and Sports Pitch Impacts Assessment - Statement of Community Involvement - Himalayan Balsam Method Statement - Reasonable Avoidance Measures Method Statement for Great Crested Newts - Landscape Masterplan including Landscape Management Plan, Landscape Implementation Management Schedule

Publicity

Site Notice: Non HH Article 15 Date Displayed: 18 January 2019 Reason: Article 13

Press Advert: Manchester Weekly News Salford Edition Date Published: 17 January 2019 Reason: Article 15 Affect Public right of Way Article 15 Standard Press Notice

Representations

65 objections have been received from 51 different properties in response to the application publicity. Three letters of objection have also been received from Peel Holdings. In addition, letters of objection have been received from Councillor Edwards and Councillor Critchley. The issues raised can be summarised as follows:

Loss of Greenspace  The loss of natural greenspace will not create a desirable area to live and will have environmental and health consequences as the City will lose a ‘green lung’. Development should be directed towards brownfield land.  The development is leading to a loss of greenspace, which is referred to in some objections as greenbelt. There should be areas of greenspace between new housing developments  The site is used to play on and for dog walking.  There are no facilities for children to play in the area within the development.

Design  Three storey houses are out of keeping with the character of the area, development on the site should be no taller than 2 ½ storeys.  There are too many houses on the site. The high density of this development does not respect the surrounding context as the adjacent development has large detached dwellings, unlike this scheme with small semi-detached properties.  The scheme is poorly designed.  The shared spaces within the development would mean having to pull bins to the end of the street so they can be serviced. The layout and relationship of shared spaces and cul-de-sacs between the old and new development are awkward and not well designed.

Crime

Page 32  The development will result in crime from opportunists; objectors believe that crime has increased since the Redrow and Bloor homes estate was built and therefore will go up again once more houses are built in the area.  There will be an increase in crime due to the lack of policing. There is also a lack of places for the community to meet which discourages social interaction.

Highways/Accessibility  The scheme will generate 418 cars, two per household at least. The traffic along Hilton Lane is horrendous and has become a main road through a residential area; it is not designed to be an arterial route used to avoid Walkden Town Centre.  The traffic impact will be far reaching onto Newearth Road, Leigh Road, Park Road, Walkden Road and further afield into Walkden, Ellenbrook and Little Hulton.  The mini roundabout at Newearth Road and Hilton Lane and near the train station is dangerous and not fit for the amount of traffic using it without the additional traffic proposed as part of this development.  Traffic will be made worse by the RHS garden and other committed developments  The Transport Assessment (TA) states that the junction of Newearth Road and Hilton Lane is already over capacity and this has been agreed by officers in the Council. The TA considers that in future scenarios i.e. 2023 the capacity would be significantly over the ‘intolerable delay’ and therefore should be classed as a severe highway impact. Also it is highlighted that the length of the queues at this junction is equivalent to queuing behind 40 buses.  The TA was undertaken in 2016 and therefore does not account for current traffic flows from the adjacent housing development and is therefore out of date. It was undertaken in school holidays and outside peak hours so is not a true representation of the volume of traffic and does not account for the traffic movements of 1200 cars plus. Road sensors under the bridge is not accounting for traffic movement turning right out of the Hilton Lane. The TA suggests the peak hour is 7:30am to 8:30am and from 5pm to 6pm but the survey works were conducted between 8am to 9:30am and 4pm to 5:30pm.  The TA and Travel Plan (TP) are bias and lack impartiality, the train station is located further than suggested so doesn’t comply with walking distances and makes the site seem more sustainable. It also refers to St Georges RC High School which is closed. Also distances are taken from the site entrance so will be further for those who live towards the rear of the development.  Transport links cannot cope with travel times tripled in peak hours.  The site is not well connected to Walkden Train Station or the Guided Busway. Walkden station is not accessible for anyone with a pram, baggage, the elderly or disabled.  The only bus service along Hilton lane is temporary facilitated by the Burgess Farm development, this bus service and the service along Bridgewater Road and Newearth Road have low levels of patronage. The objectors also note that service 29 does not run from the stop on Hulton Avenue and the service 36 often skips part of Little Hulton due to timing delays.  The road access is too close to the entrance of the adjacent new housing development.  Public transport cannot cope with the amount of development, many of the services are over capacity and the services are unreliable. Further investment into public transport will not mitigate the highway impacts of the development. It also poorly connects to major employment growth centres such a Salford Quays or Port Salford.  The site access is unsafe and unsuitable. It is located on a blind bend with poor visibility. The existing traffic calming measures do not slow traffic down to 20mph and therefore the viability splays are not sufficient. 49m visibility splays should be provided as required from the access to the development of Burgess Farm. The additional traffic and complex road layout, with cars parked on street and the proximity of local schools all impact on highway safety. The buttresses on the bridge are not shown on the highway drawings; they impact on visibility. The junction also does not consider the access from the Burgess Farm development or the entrance to the public right of way (PROW) 4m from the proposed access, the proximity of the two junctions with the PROW between is unsafe and does not create an attractive pedestrian environment.  Road surfaces are too thin to take the additional traffic.  What would happen in an emergency if access into the development is blocked off due to an accident which has structural issues with the bridge  There are no parking facilities at Walkden Station and the pedestrian walkways to get to the station are insufficient, people parking near to the station cause road traffic accidents.  An alternative access into the development rather than from Hilton Lane should be explored.  It is difficult to cross Hilton lane on foot and the pedestrian footpath under the railway is very narrow.  Emergency services will be restricted due to the traffic especially in peak hours.

Page 33  Construction traffic will create significant traffic delays and noise issues.  There is no legal right to extend the VH2 bus service contract.  There is no local centre within walking distance of this site and as such there will be a reliance on the car.

Need for the development  There is a 14.9 year supply of housing over 5 years, so why are further developments required.  The site is identified in the Salford five year housing land supply as being suitable for 100 net units, therefore showing the site is overdeveloped.  There is no need for new housing.

Planning Obligations/Affordable Housing  The list of proposed planning obligations is not clear in the application submission.  The affordable dwellings within the development are not ‘pepper potted’. Also there are 10 affordable homes directly opposite properties on Dunmail Close and Semmington View which will not be built to a high standard and this will impact on prices of existing homes. The street scene plans submitted with the application have been chosen on purpose and do not show the affordable homes. The potential occupiers will bring the area down. There have been crime issues on the Worsley Fold estate with occupiers of the affordable units.  The social housing has already been agreed with the council, prior to granting of planning consent.  The site should be used to build affordable homes.  The developer should meet the full section 106 contribution.

Residential amenity/Air and Noise Pollution  The coal mining risk assessment submitted with the application highlights risks from mines, ground gas and combustion. These risks and developing the site will have an acute effect on the health of existing residents.  The development will result in the loss of views across a field, from existing properties.  Salford is second in the country for the worst air quality in the UK. The additional traffic will cause air and noise pollution, dust and dirt.  The proposed dwellings are too close to existing dwellings and would unacceptably impact on the amenity of existing residents and result in overlooking and loss of privacy. Made worse by land in the application site being 10m higher than neighbouring properties on Semmington View and inclusion of three storey properties.  Under the Human Rights Act a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home and other land. In this context the development would violate this right due to traffic and loss of view and impact on the standard of living for existing residents.

Ecology  The development will impact on local wildlife, specifically birds of prey (owl) as they use the open space provided by the fields for hunting, birds, swallows, bats, kestrels, hawks, small rodents, cats, foxes, rabbits, frogs, toads and great crested newts and butterflies.  The application does not address impacts on great crested newts which have been found on the boundary of the site. The ecology assessment is out of date. It is questioned whether the timing (1) time of year surveys were undertaken and (2) surveys undertaken prior to the SBI improvement taking place, methodology and conclusion of the Ecological Assessment are correct and that no great crested newts were found on site, given the sites proximity to the SBI which has been developed to provide suitable habitat for great crested newts. The adjacent housing development provided a significant improvement package for the SBI and it is questioned why this development should not make a similar contribution.

Flood Risk and Drainage  Developing the site which sits on higher ground than the surrounding development will impact on drainage with more surface water running into the small brook. There are capacity concerns about whether the existing culvert can accommodate increased flows and increase flooding and maintenance liabilities elsewhere. The drainage solution proposed is unsustainable due to cost and the applicant has no legal right to deliver this. The pumping station will neutralise a 15m radius of land which is reliant on land outside the applicants ownership and a proposed culvert diversion required would also encroach onto third party land, therefore has applicant has no right to execute this.  Concerns about the foul drainage sewer connections and this surcharging and flowing into the land to the south impact on the existing residential development.

Page 34 Other  There have been workman from Bellway Homes working at the proposed access into the development.  The land has been signposted as private land no trespassing.  Local services, for example, doctors, dentists, nursery places, primary and high schools are over-subscribed and emergency services are over stretched by the current level of development in the area and this will be worsened by the provision of more housing. Local children are having to travel to schools outside their local area and will be forced into larger classes. As the schools continued to be stretched, the quality of education will drop. Short term private investment into the area will have long terms impacts on the local community and services.  Planning permission was submitted prior to the Christmas break knowing members of the public would be too busy to respond.  Plans and residents comments are not available on the Council Website.  This area is over populated with high levels of development in the surrounding area in Ellenbrook, Walkden, Worsley, Little Hulton, Mosley Common, Atherton and Tydlesley. Walkden and Little Hulton experiencing the highest rate of house building anywhere in the City, outside the City Centre.  There is a conflict of interest as Salford City Council own the site and are only interested in making money without thinking of the consequences for the local residents.  The Council and Councilor’s are not objecting to this development on land owned by SCC. But spend lots of public money fighting private land owners.  The developer is keen for profit to the detriment of the local community.

Relevant Site History

No relevant site history.

Consultations

Design For Security – Recommend that a full Crime Impact Statement is submitted as part of the planning application to show that the scheme has been designed to avoid/reduce the adverse effects of crime and disorder.

Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Land - No objections to the application, subject to conditions securing noise mitigation in the form of acoustic boundary treatments and glazing/ventilation. Conditions have been recommended to secure electric charging points and a construction method statement to safeguard air quality. Together with a full suite of contaminated land conditions.

Senior Drainage Engineer - No objection to the proposed drainage scheme.

Highways - No objections to the application subject to a package of mitigation, further details are provided in the highways section of this report.

The Coal Authority – No objection to the application subject to the imposition of a condition to secure remedial works.

Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service – No objection subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the agreed Written Scheme of Investigation.

Greater Manchester Ecological Unit – Object to the scheme on the grounds that the scheme will deliver insufficient semi-natural habitat to provide satisfactory mitigation for the loss of a large open area of greenspace that will currently function as a wildlife foraging and movement resource, more detail is set out in the ecology section of this report. In respect of other matters, GMEU recommend conditions to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the method statements for Great Crested Newts and Himalayan Balsam and recommend a condition in respect of securing a Landscape Creation and Management scheme.

The Open Spaces Society - No comments received to date

Page 35 Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – Request a condition to ensure there is no obstruction to any public right of way. They note that should a temporary or permanent obstruction be unavoidable, then no development should take place until a Diversion Order has been confirmed and made available for public use.

Ramblers Association (Manchester Area) - There are two Public Rights of Way (PROW) around the perimeter of the proposed development (W135 and W 136). These paths link into an extensive network of paths which are strategically important for recreational purposes. The Association note that for the first 10m of the footpath from Hilton Lane is narrow and bounded by high wooden panels and is poorly sign posted. The Association request that this footpath is opened up and correctly signposted as part of this scheme. They also request that there should be multiple points of access from the site to the footpath network.

Within their comments the Ramblers Association (Manchester Area) note that there are notices on the adjacent development that warn against accessing the PROW. This relates to the adjacent housing development and is not directly applicable to this scheme, however the City’s PROW officer is aware of this matter.

Network Rail (LNW) – Currently object to the application until they are reassured that the development does not impact upon their assets and the safe operation of the railway and its maintenance. The applicant is currently responding to this and an update will be provided via the amendment sheet.

Sport England – No objection to the proposal, more detail can be found in the appraisal section of this report.

Rights Of Way – Request that resurfacing improvements are made to footpath 137 Worsley. Also support the connections from the development to the wider footpath network.

United Utilities (UU) - Note that there is an easement in the vicinity of the site affected by the proposal and has restrictive covenants that must be adhered to. UU have no objections to the development subject to conditions relating to foul water and surface water. UU note that a public sewer crosses the site and they may not permit building over it and provide advice of access strips. Comments have been provided on site drainage, the management and maintenance of SUDs, water supply and United Utilities assets.

Planning Policy

Development Plan Policy

Unitary Development Plan ST1 - Sustainable Urban Neighbourhoods This policy states that development will be required to contribute towards the creation and maintenance of sustainable urban neighbourhoods.

Unitary Development Plan ST10 - Recreation Provision This policy states that a comprehensive range of accessible recreation opportunities will be provided through 1) the protection, improvement and reorganisation of existing recreation sites; 2) the development of a regional park; 3) developing a network of Key Recreation Areas; 4) provision of new recreation facilities on sites allocated in the UDP; 5) the development of a series of Local Nature Reserves; 6) improvement of access between urban areas and the Countryside; 7) use of planning obligations to provide new and enhanced recreation facilities.

Unitary Development Plan ST12 - Development Density This policy states that development within regional centres, town centre and close to key public transport routes and interchanges will be required to achieve a high density appropriate to the location and context.

Unitary Development Plan DES1 - Respecting Context This policy states that development will be required to respond to its physical context and respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated and contribute towards a local identity and distinctiveness.

Unitary Development Plan DES2 - Circulation and Movement This policy states that the design and layout of new development will be required to be fully accessible to all people, maximise the movement of pedestrians and cyclists through and around the site safely, be well related to public transport and local amenities and minimise potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.

Page 36 Unitary Development Plan DES3 - Design of Public Space This policy states that development should include the provision of public space; designed to have a clear role and purpose which responds to local needs; reflects and enhances the character and identify of the area; is an integral part of and provide appropriate setting and an appropriate scale for the surrounding development; be attractive and safe; connect to establish pedestrian routes and public spaces and minimise and make provision for maintenance requirements.

Unitary Development Plan DES4 - Relationship of Development to Public Space This policy states that developments that adjoin a public space shall be designed to have a strong and positive relationship with that space by creating clearly defining public and private spaces, promoting natural surveillance and reduce the visual impact of car parking.

Unitary Development Plan DES7 - Amenity of Users and Neighbours This policy states that all new development, alterations and extensions to existing buildings will be required to provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout. Development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers or users of other development.

Unitary Development Plan DES10 - Design and Crime This policy states that developments must be designed to discourage crime, antisocial behaviour, and the fear of crime. Development should i) be clearly delineated ii) allow natural surveillance iii) avoid places of concealment iv) encourage activity within public areas.

Unitary Development Plan H1 - Provision of New Housing Development This policy states that all new housing will contribute toward the provision of a balanced housing mix; be built of an appropriate density; provide a high quality residential environment; make adequate provision for open space; where necessary make a contribution to local infrastructure and facilities required to support the development; and be consistent with other policies of the UDP.

Unitary Development Plan H4 - Affordable Housing This policy states that in areas that there is a demonstrable lack of affordable to meet local needs developers will be required by negotiation with the city council to provide an element of affordable housing of appropriate types.

Unitary Development Plan H8 - Open Space Provision with New Housing This policy states that planning permission will only be granted where there is adequate and appropriate provision for formal and informal open space, and its maintenance over a twenty-year period. Standards to be reached will be based upon policy R2 and guidance contai8ned within Supplementary Planning Documents.

Unitary Development Plan A2 - Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled This policy states that development proposals, road improvement schemes and traffic management measures will be required to make adequate provision for safe and convenient access by the disabled, other people with limited or impaired mobility, pedestrians and cyclists

Unitary Development Plan A8 - Impact of Development on Highway Network This policy states that development will not be permitted where it would i) have an unacceptable impact upon highway safety ii) cause an unacceptable restriction to the movement of heavy goods vehicles along Abnormal Load Routes.

Unitary Development Plan A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle, Motorcycle Parking in New Development This policy states that there should be adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s minimum standards; maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded; and parking facilities should be provided consistent with the provision and maintenance of adequate standards of safety and security.

Unitary Development Plan EN8 - Nature Conservation of Local Importance This policy states that development that would adversely affect the nature conservation value of a Site of Biological Importance, a Local Nature Reserve, or a priority habitat for Salford as identified in the Greater Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan, will only be permitted where the benefits of the development clearly

Page 37 outweigh the reduction in the nature conservation interest of the site; the detrimental impact has been minimised as far as is practicable; appropriate mitigation measure have been provided. Conditions or planning obligations will be used to ensure the protection, enhancement and management of these sites and habitats.

Unitary Development Plan EN9 - Wildlife Corridors This policy states that development that would affect any land that functions as a wildlife corridor, or that provides an important link or stepping stone between habitats will not be permitted. Conditions and planning obligations may be used to protect, enhance or manage to facilitate the movement of flora and fauna where development is permitted.

Unitary Development Plan EN12 - Important Landscape Features This policy states that development that would have a detrimental impact on, or result in the loss of, any important landscape feature will not be permitted unless the applicant can clearly demonstrate that the importance of the development plainly outweighs the nature conservation and amenity value of the landscape feature and the design and layout of the development cannot reasonably make provision for the retention of the landscape feature. If the removal of an important existing landscape feature is permitted as part of a development, a replacement of at least equivalent size and quality, or other appropriate compensation, will be required either within the site, or elsewhere within the area.

Unitary Development Plan EN17 - Pollution Control This policy states that in areas where existing levels of pollution exceed local or national standards, planning permission will only be granted where the development incorporates adequate measures to ensure that there is no unacceptable risk or nuisance to occupiers, and that they are provided with an appropriate and satisfactory level of amenity.

Unitary Development Plan EN18 - Protection of Water Courses This policy states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on surface or ground water.

Unitary Development Plan EN19 - Flood Risk and Surface Water This policy states that any application for development that it is considered likely to be at risk of flooding or increase the risk of flooding elsewhere will need to be accompanied by a formal flood risk assessment. It should identify mitigation or other measures to be incorporated into the development or undertaking on other land, which are designed to reduce that risk of flooding to an acceptable level.

Unitary Development Plan CH8 - Local List of Buildings , Structures and Feature of Architectural, Archaeological or Historic Interest This policy states that the impact of development on any building, structure or feature that is identified on the council’s local list of buildings, structures and features of architectural, archaeological or historic interest will be a material planning consideration.

Unitary Development Plan R1 - Protection of Recreation Land Facilities This policy states the development of existing Recreation Land and facilities will not be permitted unless: i. the development is for recreation purposes that would contribute to the continued recreation use of the site; ii. adequate replacement provision, of equivalent or better accessibility, community benefit and management is made in a suitable location; iii. it has been clearly demonstrated that the site is surplus to recreational requirements; iv. the development is ancillary to the principal use of the site.

Unitary Development Plan DEV5 - Planning Conditions and Obligations This policy states that development that would have an adverse impact on any interests of acknowledged importance, or would result in a material increase in the need or demand for infrastructure, services, facilities and/or maintenance, will only be granted planning permission subject to planning conditions or planning obligations that would ensure adequate mitigation measures are put in place.

Other Material Planning Considerations

National Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework 2019 National Planning Practice Guidance

Page 38 Local Planning Policy

Supplementary Planning Document - Design This document reflects the need to design in a way that allows the city to support its population socially and economically, working with and inviting those affected into an inclusive decision making process. Equally, development must contribute to the creation of an environmentally sustainable city supporting the natural environment minimising the effects of, and being more adaptable to, the potential impact of climate change.

Supplementary Planning Document - Sustainable Design and Construction This policy document expands on policies in Salford’s Unitary Development Plan to provide additional guidance for planners and developers on the integration of sustainable design and construction measures in new and existing developments.

Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Crime This policy document contains a number policies used to assess and determine planning applications and is intended as a guide in designing out crime.

Supplementary Planning Document - Nature Conservation and Biodiversity This policy document expands on the policies of the Unitary Development Plan relating to the issues of nature conservation and biodiversity, and seeks to ensure that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of how those policies should be implemented and their desired outcome.

Supplementary Planning Document - Greenspace Strategy This policy document expands on the policies of the Unitary Development Plan relating to the issues of open space and recreation, and seeks to ensure that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of how those policies should be implemented and their desired outcome. This should help to ensure that the greenspace needs of Salford are successfully met; delivering safe, high quality open spaces that are well-located, well- designed, well-managed, and meet the aspirations of local communities.

Supplementary Planning Document - Planning Obligations This policy document expands on the policies in Salford’s Unitary Development Plan to provide additional guidance on the use of planning obligations within the city. It explains the city council’s overall approach to the use of planning obligations, and sets out detailed advice on the use of obligations in ensuring that developments make an appropriate contribution to mitigate the impacts of the development.

Supplementary Planning Document - Trees and Development The policy document has been prepared to give information to all those involved in the development process about the standard that the Local Planning Authority requires for new development proposals with specific reference to the retention and protection of trees

Planning Guidance - Flood Risk and Development The overarching aim of the planning guidance is to ensure that new development in areas at risk of flooding in the city, is adequately protected from flooding and that the risks of flooding are not increased elsewhere as a result of new development.

Planning Guidance - Housing The purpose of the guidance is to ensure that the residential development coming forward in Salford contributes to establishing and maintaining sustainable communities, tackles the specific housing and related issues that face Salford, and helps to deliver the vision and strategy of the UDP, the Housing Strategy and the Community Plan.

It is not considered that there are any local finance considerations that are material to the application

The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework Draft 2019 (“GMSF”) and the Revised Draft Local Plan 2019 are subject to public consultation until 18th March and 22nd March 2019 respectively. Following that, they will go through a number of further stages, including examination at a public inquiry, before they are adopted. Adoption is expected to take place towards the end of 2020 or early 2021.

Page 39 Now the GMSF and Local Plan are published documents decisions, including those by the Council and ultimately by inspectors on appeal, are able to start to afford them some weight as emerging policies. However, as the weight given depends on the stage of the plan; unresolved objections; and consistency with the Government’s policies, the weight currently to be attached to the GMSF and Local Plan is only limited. The weight moving forward will be reviewed and is likely to depend on the extent to which there are unresolved objections emerging from the consultation process.

In addition, following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) it is necessary to consider the weight which can be afforded to the policies of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (paragraph 213 NPPF February 2019).

In terms of this application it is considered that the relevant policies of the UDP can be afforded due weight for the purposes of decision making as the relevant criteria within the UDP policies applicable to the proposed development are consistent with the policies contained in the NPPF.

Appraisal

Principle of Development

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF chapter 11 encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed provided that it is not of high environmental value. However, whilst this principle clearly encourages the use of previously developed land in the first instance, the NPPF does not preclude development on any other land, including greenfield or previously undeveloped land which this site is. For the avoidance of doubt this site is not located within the greenbelt.

The site is identified in Salford’s 2018 to 2037 Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) as a potential development site for housing (reference S/LHU/81). Having regard to the government’s planning practice guidance relating to land availability assessments, the site is considered to be suitable, available and achievable for new housing development (including the site being viable). A yield of 200 houses has been assumed on the site.

The site is also allocated in the Revised Draft Local Plan for circa 200 houses (reference H9/6). Although the allocation carries very limited weight given there are likely to be objections to it and that the plan is at a relatively early stage of preparation, development of the site for housing would in principle be supported subject to more detailed consideration of a number of issues.

Although the HELAA and Revised Draft Local Plan estimate that the site has the potential to accommodate 200 dwellings, the proposed 209 dwellings is considered to be acceptable given that the development is at an appropriate density for its location.

Neighbouring residents have questioned why the development is required as Salford has a 14.9 year supply of housing over five years. Although there is a five year supply of deliverable dwellings this does not mean that planning applications for new housing should be refused. To maintain a five year supply the council has to continue to grant planning permission for sustainable development. Government projections show there is a need for new housing in the city into the long term.

Loss of Playing Fields

The northern part of the site (approximately half of the land area) was historically maintained as a detached education playing field known as St. Georges Playing Fields. This use ceased in 1997, due to lack of maintenance and the schools underutilisation. Since 1997, the site has been leased as grazing land. The playing field has therefore not been used for over 20 years. In terms of UDP policy R1, it is considered that the site is surplus to recreational requirements and it has been agreed that alternative recreational facilities in the form of 15 allotment plots will be provided on-site. It has also been agreed and that the sports pitch portion of the open space financial contribution will be directed towards Wharton Playing Fields. Sport England has confirmed that, subject to the financial contribution, they have no objection to the loss of the playing field.

Housing Mix

Page 40 Policy HOU1 of the housing planning guidance states that within the part of the city where the proposed development is located, the large majority of dwellings within new developments should be in the form of houses rather than apartments. The entire scheme is being delivered as houses in accordance with policy HOU1.

Policy HOU2 of the housing planning guidance states that where houses are proposed the majority should have at least three bedrooms. The development is for 123 x three bed and 86 x four bed houses. Given this, the proposed development is in accordance with policy HOU2.

Design

Layout of the development -

The site will have one vehicle access point into the development from Hilton Lane. Due to the limited frontage the site has on Hilton Lane there will be no dwellings directly fronting onto Hilton Lane. Plots 1 and 2 have been designed to front the access road into the development and this will provide the development with presence to Hilton Lane. The internal layout provides a series of circular roads within the site with a number of cul-de-sac / shared driveway arrangements. The proposed layout of the site will be informal in nature, similar to the new housing development to the east.

All of the proposed dwellings would front the highway or shared drives providing strong frontages to the streets and overlook features such as the allotments, substation and pumping station. This is supported as this will promote natural surveillance of the streets and discourage crime. Also, where possible, gardens have been position back to back to increase security.

It is considered that the sizes of the proposed plots are appropriate, and are at a comparable density to the adjacent development. All dwellings would have space within their plots to the front or the side for off road car parking and all dwellings will have a private garden with sufficient space within the curtilage for bin storage provision.

The allotment provision will be located in the south west corner of the site. The dwellings to the north and west of the allotments have been designed to overlook the allotments which will provide a degree of natural surveillance which is supported. The final layout of the allotments and associated infrastructure will be agreed by condition.

The Council is keen for the scheme to include the provision of pedestrian connections from the site to the public footpaths which bound the site. These will provide future residents with direct access to an extensive network of public footpaths which is supported. Three points of access from the development have been identified by the Council, these are:

1) A connection in the north-west corner of the site close to the pedestrian route which runs under the railway. 2) A connection on the southern boundary close to the proposed pumping station 3) A connection on the western boundary in close proximity to the junction on Semmington View

Within the application site there is no proposed built form that would prohibit these connections from being created. However, the provision of the routes would need to be examined in detail as there are land level changes, access will be required over third party land, agreements will need to be reached in places to remove boundary treatments to facilitate the connections, and the routes would need to be formalised through relevant highway legislation. Any works required to facilitate the footpaths outside the redline boundary of the site; will be funded through the public realm S106 contribution. A condition will therefore be recommended to secure these routes, where practically possible.

The Crime Impact Statement highlights that access to the public footpaths would compromise the security of the development, allowing criminal legitimate access. Whilst the concerns are noted, given the low boundary treatment/hedgerow that exists around the perimeter of the site it is considered that access could easily be obtained. The site has been designed so that all the boundaries of the site, with the exception of that along the boundary with the railway, are overlooked by the proposed dwellings, in addition the dwellings on the adjacent site also look out onto the eastern and southern boundaries of the application site, it is therefore questionable as to whether the development will be more vulnerable to crime by creating pedestrian routes to and from the site.

Page 41 It is also considered that the benefits of creating pedestrian access in terms of accessibility far outweigh any potential negative impacts.

In light of the above, it is considered that the layout of the development is acceptable and will accord with policies DES1, DES2, DES3 and DES10 of the UDP.

Scale and Massing -

The proposed dwellings, in terms of their scale and massing, are considered to be appropriate. The development includes three storey dwellings; these are positioned where there are land level changes and to add interest to the street scene. Whilst three storey dwellings will be taller than the dwellings in the immediate area, there is a variety of house types and a large number of two and a half storey properties. It is therefore considered that three storey dwellings would be in-keeping with the character of the area and accord with UDP policy DES1.

Appearance of Dwellings -

The immediate design context for the development has been set by the adjacent housing development. Within this adjacent development there is a mix of dwellings with hipped and gable roofs, dwellings have detailing such as projecting porches and bay windows. There is also a mix of brick and render facing materials.

The proposed dwellings are traditional in appearance, constructed from brick with gable pitched roofs. The dwellings will have feature brick detailing above and below windows, black barge boards and guttering. Design features on properties include projecting pitched roof canopies over front doors, Juliet balconies, single storey bay windows, front projecting gables and dormer windows. Dwellings located on corner plots have been designed to be duel fronted.

At this stage the applicant is unable to confirm the exact palette of materials due to industry wide sourcing issues. Material samples will be required by condition to ensure that the materials are acceptable and will respect the context of the immediate area in accordance with the council’s design policies.

The crime impact statement submitted with the application states that all dwellings will be designed to Building Regulations Approved Document Q which includes standards for door and windows to resist physical attack from burglary.

Highways

A Transport Assessment (TA) and Travel Plan (TP) have been submitted in support of this planning application.

Sustainable location -

The presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is identified by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), means that it is necessary to consider whether the proposed development represents a sustainable form of development. As part of this overall assessment, consideration of whether the proposed development is accessible to everyday facilities and employment by non-car modes of transport should be given.

The application site is well connected to the local highway network providing convenient access from the development to the surrounding residential areas and local amenities. Hilton Lane is well lit, with footways on either side of the carriageway, apart from west of the proposed site access. Hilton Lane is subject to a 20mph speed limit with traffic calming in the form of raised junction table and speed cushions.

As part of this proposal, the new site access is designed with provision of a 2m wide footway on either side of the entrance, this provides for a new wider footway on the western side of the access point. The junction incorporates calming features in the form a raised junction table plus a pair of speed cushions on Hilton Lane to ensure traffic speeds are kept low. These measures will improve access to and from the site for pedestrians. The highway mitigation package proposed also includes a sum of £48,000 towards a highway infrastructure improvement scheme to improve the pedestrian / cycle facilities at the junction of Newearth Road / Hilton Road mini roundabout and on Hilton Lane.

Page 42 There are two Public Right of Way’s (PROW) adjacent to the site boundary connecting to Trent Drive to the north and Wigan’s PROW to the south. As discussed in more depth later in the report, the proposal will facilitate access from the development onto these footpaths which will improve accessibility to the public footpath network and the wider area. S106 monies for public realm improvements will be used to improve these PROWs and the Loop Line.

There are bus stops located close to the site on Hilton Lane providing regular services in each direction. The circular VH2 service links Burgess Farm, Walkden Railway Station and Walkden Town Centre at 15 minute intervals. Alternatively, there are bus stops available on the A6 Manchester Road, around a 12 minute walk from the site. The S106 package includes a sum of money to improve bus services, to fund an extension of the existing shuttle bus which currently serves the adjacent development and/or to fund changes to the route/frequency of the existing service or to fund additional journeys to the bus services numbered 29, 36, and 38 which also serve the development.

Walkden Railway Station is located around a 5 minute cycle journey or a 15 minute walk from the entrance of the site and provides services to destinations including Manchester Victoria, Wigan, Blackburn, Kirkby, Southport and Leeds. The S106 package also includes a sum of monies to be directed towards improvements to Walkden Train Station, which may include improved access to the station from the development site.

In summary, contribution towards pedestrian/cycle infrastructure improvements and public transport, providing future residents with genuine alternatives to travel by private vehicles are proposed as part of the development in accordance with national and local transport policies.

Likely Trip Generation -

During the course of the application, Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) have raised concerns that the traffic survey used in the TA is out of date and is not representative of current conditions. The Manchester Road / Hilton Lane / Ellesmere Street junction models had missing signal parameters. Subsequently, a Technical Note (TN) was issued by the applicant to address these concerns.

The TN demonstrates that the background traffic is slightly lower than the historic data used in the TA. The Local Highway Authority (LHA) and TfGM agree this is reprehensive of current traffic around the site.

The trip rates associated with the development have been revisited to reflect the up to date position. The revisited trip rates are calculated using the arrivals and departures to the Dukes Manor and Worsley Fold residential developments via Burgess Way, which provides a per dwelling trip rate which is applied to the proposed development of 209 dwellings to establish the updated trip generation, as shown below.

Housing Trips (209 dwellings) Time Period Arrival Departure 2-Way Weekday AM Peak Hour 15 73 88 Weekday PM Peak Hour 80 31 111

It can be seen from the table above that the development is expected to generate 88 and 111 two-way trips in the AM and PM peaks, respectively. The LHA have reviewed and accept the trip rates and the other technical inputs into the traffic model.

Weekday AM Peak HR Weekday PM Peak HR Route Additional 2-Way Movement Additional 2-Way Movement Vehicle / % Vehicle / % Trips Trips min Increase min Increase 1 vehicle Manchester Road 1 vehicle per 1 / Hilton Lane 25 1.4% 31 per Approx. 2.3% Approx. signal junction 1.9 minutes 2.4

Page 43 minutes

Newearth Road / 1 vehicle 1 vehicle Hilton Lane mini- per 2 62 3.4% 76 per 47 4.1% roundabout Approx. seconds junction minutes

It can be seen from the table above how traffic from the development is envisaged to disperse into the local highway network. The highest at the junction of Newearth Road / Hilton Lane mini-roundabout of 1 two-way trip per minute and every 47 seconds in the AM and PM peaks, respectively this equates to a 3.4% in the AM and 4.1% increase in the PM peak.

The modelling of the Hilton Lane/Park Road / Newearth Road mini roundabout demonstrates that the junction is currently operating at theoretical capacity with high levels of queuing and congestion. This relatively reflects the existing operation of the junction. However, with the addition of the development traffic, the modelling shows that the junction will see an increase in traffic and as the roundabout is at theoretical capacity this will result in additional delays. TfGM and the LHA acknowledge this; however consider that a package of measures to reduce the need for private vehicles usage by encouraging the use of sustainable modes of travel and creating a safe and desirable environment for pedestrians and cyclists, is suitable to mitigate the impact from the development. This will involve improving the pedestrian infrastructure along Hilton Lane and at the junction of Manchester road / Hilton Lane and Newearth Road / Hilton Road mini roundabout.

The Manchester Road / Hilton Lane signal junction has an increase of 1.4% and 2.3% in the AM and PM peaks. The modelling in the TN shows that, with the addition of development traffic, the Manchester Road / Hilton Lane signal junction will operate at practical capacity. The junction model doesn’t consider any downstream congestion on the A6 corridor affecting the operation of the junction. TfGM consider that the addition of development traffic will result in a slightly worse operation than predicted in the modelling.

In planning terms, considering the information above and being mindful of the existing traffic situation, it is considered that the impact of this proposal will be minimal and does not represent a “severe” impact, the test set out in the NPPF. In light of this and the contributions secured towards pedestrian/cycle infrastructure improvements and public transport, no objections are raised to the development on traffic impact grounds and therefore the development complies with the requirements of UDP policies A2 and A8 and the NPPF.

Site Access -

The development will provide a single vehicular access point off Hilton Lane. The new access includes a 6.75m wide carriageway with 2m wide footways with tactile paving across on either side of access. The junction incorporates traffic calming features in the form of a raised junction table, plus a pair of speed cushions between the proposed access point and the access to the Burgess Farm residential development.

The visibility splays for the proposed site access are designed in accordance with the 20mph speed limit of Hilton Lane. Objectors to the scheme have raised concerns in relation to highway safety and suggest the traffic speed on Hilton Lane is significantly higher than the posted speed limit.

The applicant undertook an ATC speed survey in February 2019. The dry weather speed was recorded in the ATC survey as 31.7mph in the westbound direction and in wet weather the speed was 29.2mph.

To discourage speeding the applicant has proposed to install an additional traffic calming measure in the form of a speed table at the site access and additional speed cushions to help further reduce the speed of vehicles along Hilton Lane.

Notwithstanding this, the Local Highway Authority (LHA) have reviewed the design of the proposed site access and confirm that visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m for a 30mph speed limit with a 250mm or 500mm offset of the visibility splay into carriageway are achievable and would comply with Manual for Street 2.

In terms of forward visibility along Hilton Lane and under the railway bridge the LHA have confirmed a 60m forward viability is achievable in both directions which is more than suitable for the speed the road and would comply with Manual for Street.

Page 44 In respect of concerns regarding the site access and its proximity to the development of the former Burgess Farm which has outline planning consent for residential development. Given the Burgess Farm access will only serve up to 10 dwellings, it is likely to generate minimal traffic and as such is not considered to conflict with the proposed access arrangements for this site.

The development has only one point of access, therefore it will be a requirement that the footways on both sides of the access road entering the site should be strengthened. This would allow emergency vehicles to use the footways, should the carriageway become blocked along this section of the road in the event of an emergency.

The TA reviews the recorded Personal Injury Collision (PIC) data and this does not indicate any inherent road safety issues within 400m of the site access. In addition, the PIC data does not indicate any inherent road safety issues or recurring accident patents within the wider study area.

Whilst objectors concerns are noted about Hilton Lane not being suitable for the amount of traffic, Hilton Lane has been designed to carry traffic from the A6 to B5232 and as such is suitable from a highway perspective for the additional traffic that will use the route generated from this development.

In light of this the LHA have advised that the proposed site access is acceptable.

Landscaping

Trees -

The application has been supported by a tree report, which the council’s Arborist considers contains a fair and accurate appraisal of the trees on site. The tree report records 6 individual trees, 6 groups and 1 hedge. 9 trees and groups are categorised as ‘C’ and 4 trees and groups are categorised as ‘B’ these include two groups of trees, the hedge and one tree.

It is proposed that, in order to facilitate the development, five trees and part of two groups of trees will be removed. The components of the groups of trees proposed for removal represent small stems with a low amenity value, also it is recognised that these are category ‘C’ trees and should not be allowed to constrain development.

A small part of the hedgerow (category ‘B’) would also be removed. The council’s Arborist is of the opinion that the integrity of the hedgerow has been lost over time with many stems of elder having established within the hedge. The elder is now in decline leaving a sporadic boundary. The loss of part of the hedgerow is regrettable given the contribution to the overall amenity value of the area in the short, mid and long-term. However, given the footprint of the proposal; the available space and the earthworks proposed, retention is not possible. It is considered that the loss of part of the hedgerow can be mitigated against by securing supplementary planting in the existing hedge and removing the elder, which in the long term will maintain the integrity of the hedgerow.

It is also proposed that, in order to create sufficient clearance for the development, three groups and one tree will be pruned back to the boundary which is considered acceptable.

The site will be subject to a landscape strategy, details of which are discussed below. It is considered that this provides mitigation for the trees lost as part of the development. In order to safeguard the existing trees on site a combined Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) submitted with the application is considered to be fit for purpose and will be secured by condition.

Subject to conditions, it is considered that the development will accord with UDP policy EN12 and the Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document.

Landscaping –

The applicant has submitted a series of detailed landscape plans and information in support of the application. These plans have been reviewed by Urban Vision’s Landscape Consultant who has made comments in respect of the choice of species of hedge and trees and also requested that wildflower/grass mix is planted around the boundaries of the site. It is also noted that details of hard landscaping have not been submitted.

Page 45 The scheme is considered to provide residents with a good balance of hard and soft landscaping and provides a clear indication of public and private spaces within the development. The use of landscaping to break up the dominance of car parking across the site, and the provision of landscaping in-between the application site and the boundary with the adjacent housing development to screen parallel access roads does need further consideration, however this can be dealt with through a conditions. Therefore a full landscaping condition is recommended.

In light of above it is considered that the development will be appropriately landscaped in accordance with policy DES9 of the UDP.

Boundary Treatments –

A boundary treatment plan has also been provided in support of the application. Fencing to a height of 1.8m is proposed along the boundary of the rear gardens and 0.9m high post and rail fencing will be provided between plots. Where rear gardens of dwellings border the street boundary, walls to a height of 1.8m are proposed. A 3m high fence will be proposed to plots 1 to 8 for acoustic purposes. The boundary treatment around the perimeter of the site will be in the form of 0.45m high knee rail, in addition 2.4m high weld mesh fencing is proposed around the allotments.

It is considered that the proposed boundary treatment has been design to discourage crime by ensuring all gardens and rear access paths to gardens having lockable gates. It is considered that the approach to boundary treatments is acceptable. The detailed design of the boundary treatment has not been submitted with the application, therefore this detail will be agreed through a landscaping condition. Subject to this condition the scheme is considered to accord with policies DES1 and DES10 of the UDP.

Flooding and Surface Water

The application site is located in Flood Zone 1 and within the Core Conurbation Critical Drainage area. Given the size of the site, the application has been supported by a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy.

The development is classed as More Vulnerable owing to its proposed residential use, however such uses are deemed to be appropriate in Food Zone 1, therefore there are no objections to the proposal on flood risk grounds.

The drainage scheme submitted with the application confirms that the land is not suitable for an infiltration drainage solution. The applicant also explored the option of above ground SuDS within the site, however this was deemed not to be appropriate due to the open space provision within the site being used for allotments and also the fall in land levels across the site. Due to land ownership it is not possible to obtain a gravity connection to the water course which runs along the boundary of the site. In this instance, as described in paragraph 083 of the Planning Practice Guidance, notes the following:

“In terms of the overall viability of a proposed development, expecting compliance with the technical standards is unlikely to be reasonably practicable if more expensive than complying with building regulations – provided that where there is a risk of flooding the development will be safe and flood risk is not increased elsewhere.”

In this situation compliance with building regulations relates to the connection of site discharges to a separate system. In this situation, the discharges are to the public sewer system as advised by United Utilities following discussion with the applicant and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). Therefore, the only realistic option is to pump the surface water to the watercourse. Whilst a pumping station is less than ideal, it is a more sustainable solution than pumping the water to the combined sewer. The drainage solution submitted has been designed to have the same run off rate as the greenfield site due to proposed attenuation measures. The City’s Drainage Engineer has reviewed the detailed drainage scheme and considers it to be acceptable. He has also confirmed that this drainage scheme meets the requirements as set out by Network Rail to ensure that the drainage will not have an impact upon the operation railway.

Sustainable drainage tree pits have been included in the scheme and all dwellings will be provided with a water butt, which is betterment in terms of surface water drainage. The drainage strategy highlights that these are located within the site in shared or open spaces and shows there to be a total of 27 trees. The strategy clearly states this is preliminary therefore a condition to secure these is recommended.

Page 46 In respect of the pumping station, objectors have highlighted that the station will neutralise a 15m radius of land which relies on land outside of the redline and that works to a culvert on site will also require works on third party land. Given there is no agreement in place for such works an objector considered the applicant to have no legal right to deliver the proposed drainage scheme. This is a matter for agreement between both parties and is not a material planning consideration and sites outside the planning process.

In respect of the representations regarding the surface water drainage capacity and concerns about the foul drainage sewer connections and wider implications of these matters, the city’s drainage engineer disagrees with the assertion that this situation will exacerbate flood risk to another site. Currently run-off from the site will generally flow towards the Bloor Homes site due to topography. The development will include the construction of a surface water drainage system to collect surface water run-off. Only in exceedence events will water leave the system. It is proposed that a new foul drainage system will be connected to the existing combined public sewer which crosses the site. All requirements of United Utilities must be met prior to approval of connection.

In light of the above it is considered that the proposed development accords with UDP policy EN19 and the Flood Risk and Development Planning Guidance.

Heritage

Archaeology –

An archaeological desk-based assessment (DBA) was submitted with the application and during the course of the application the applicant has provided a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for the proposed archaeological works on site. The Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service (GMAAS) have confirmed that they are satisfied that the DBA meets the requirements for such a study as set-out in paragraph 189 of the NPPF and accept its concluding recommendations. GMAAS have also reviewed the WSI which has been updated during the course of the application and agreed that this is acceptable. A condition is recommended to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the WSI.

Locally Listed Building –

Burgess farmhouse and outbuildings are included on the city council’s local list of heritage assets for its architectural and aesthetic value. The farmhouse, which is currently unoccupied and in a poor state of repair, fronts onto Hilton Lane, adjacent to the proposed site access to the development. It is important to note that planning permission has been granted for the demolition of all the farm buildings and the redevelopment of the site for residential use. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that, given the scale and massing of the proposed development, being low rise, together with the distance of separation between the proposed development and the locally listed asset, there would be no significant detrimental impact upon the setting of the former farmhouse.

In light of the above it is considered that the proposed development would accord with UDP policy CH8.

Ecology

The application site is allocated in the Salford UDP as a wildlife corridor and the land adjacent, to the west is a Site of Biological Importance (SBI) known as ‘Ponds near New Manchester’. The Greater Manchester Ecology Unit (GMEU) note that this SBI is designated partly because it is known to support the great crested newt, a specially protected species -

The application is supported by a Habitat Survey and Reasonable Avoidance Measures Method Statement for Great Crested Newts. GMEU have reviewed the Habitat Survey noting that reliance has been placed on previous surveys undertaken to inform nearby recent developments, particularly in relation to great crested newts. GMEU have confirmed that they are prepared to accept that taking these previous surveys into account there is sufficient information available to determine the application. GMEU accept that the site currently has limited potential to support great crested newts. GMEU note that significant work has been undertaken on the wider Burgess Lane housing developments and on the creation of the Nature Park West. The disturbance to the landscape caused by the work, and the distances between known newt ponds and the current application site, make the probability that newts have colonised the application site or land adjacent to the site as very low since 2015 when the latest survey was undertaken. GMEU further note that the site itself does not support optimum

Page 47 terrestrial habitat that could be used by great crested newts. GMEU conclude by stating that they do not consider that further surveys for great crested newts will add anything to the assessment of the potential impact of the proposed development on great crested newts.

Given the highly protected status of the great crested newts and because the presence of the great crested newts on the site cannot be entirely ruled out, the applicant has prepared a Reasonable Avoidance Measures Method Statement for Great Crested Newts. GMEU note that all of the works on the nearby development sites have been carried out successfully using Reasonable Avoidance Measures. The method statement has been reviewed by GMEU who have confirmed that it is fit for purpose. A condition is recommended to ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the Reasonable Avoidance measures.

GMEU note that the adjacent Burgess Farm site supported much better habitat (sheep grazed pasture and hedgerows) than the current application site. The boundary of the Burgess Farm site to the adjacent SBI is much longer, the landscape had not been subject to any recent disturbance, and parts of the Burgess Farm development (drainage solutions) involved direct encroachment into the SBI. There was also a concurrent loss of open farmed land in this development. The enhancement of land in the ‘Nature Park west’ was considered to be a proportionate requirement for the Burgess Farm site to compensate for the loss of open farmland habitats and direct and indirect impacts on the SBI, a view upheld at Public Inquiry.

The current application does not involve the same degree of direct and indirect impact on the special interest of the SBI or on the landscape and therefore the requirement for the provision of compensatory habitats and greenspace is not comparable.

Nevertheless, GMEU consider there is a requirement for the current application to provide more in the way of semi-natural greenspace to mitigate for the loss of greenspace that currently functions as a wildlife foraging and movement resource. In particular, GMEU consider the areas of greenspace around the perimeter of the site to be too narrow and too formal to function effectively. GMEU advise that effective landscape corridors of semi- natural greenspace should be provided through the site or at the site boundaries of at least 10m.

The applicant has stressed that widening the greenspace around the development will have significant consequence for the layout of the scheme. The applicant is of the opinion that the buffer zone with appropriate landscaping and measures to prevent public access will be sufficient to ensure the greenspace functions as a wildlife corridor. The landscape buffer along the south and east boundary ranges in width from 0.8m to 5.4m, along the southern boundary this increases to between 3.96m and 13.9m in width, it is acknowledged that the western boundary abuts the SBI.

GMEU note that the applicant cannot rely on provision from other nearby developments to deliver mitigation for the loss of greenspace on this site, because this greenspace was provided as mitigation for greenspace losses associated with other developments. Whilst this position is accepted it is considered that a landscape buffer will be created between the two developments and for over half of the south/east boundary this is over the recommended 10m width. A detailed Landscape Creation and Management Plan is to be prepared for the development and this will be conditioned. This will ensure this greenspace is planted to encourage the movement of wildlife. It is also acknowledged that the developer has agreed to make a planning obligation contribution for public open space.

Whilst GMEU consider the provision of semi-natural greenspace on the site is not sufficient, when being mindful of the spaces surrounding the site and the opportunity to increase biodiversity by landscaping within the site, it is considered on balance that the development is acceptable in terms of its impacts on biodiversity and it would be difficult to justify a reason for refusal on the grounds of biodiversity.

Invasive Species –

The submitted Habitat Survey identifies that Himalayan Balsam occurs on the site. It is an offence under the terms of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to cause any of these plant species to spread in the wild. Following comments from GMEU the applicants have provided a Himalayan Balsam Method Statement. GMEU have agreed that the detail is sufficient and as such a condition is recommended to ensure the development is undertaken in strict accordance with this statement.

Bird Nesting –

Page 48 GMEU recommend that any vegetation clearance required to facilitate the scheme takes place outside of the optimum time of year for bird nesting. As it is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to intentionally damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst in use or being built, the attachment of a condition is not necessary as it would duplicate that legislation. However, an informative has been added to remind the applicant of this.

Residential Amenity

The closest residential dwellings to the application site are those on Semmington View, Dunmail Close and Bullbridge View which form part of the recently constructed Burgress Farm development. These properties directly face the southern and western boundaries of the site and are accessed via cul-de-sacs or shared driveways that run between the existing dwellings and the site boundary. Suitable separation distances, of over 26m, will be retained between habitable elevations of these existing dwellings and those proposed, this takes into account the fact that some dwellings along this boundary are either 2½ or three storeys in height. This will ensure that privacy for existing residents and proposed residents is safeguarded and ensure the proposed dwellings would not have an overbearing impact on the existing dwellings in accordance with policy DES7 of the UDP.

There are certain points within the development where the Council’s normal separation distances would not be maintained. At their closest point, 14m is provided between front elevations and 17m is provided between rear elevations. Other areas which are short of the separation distances are where windows face gable elevations the closest relationship here is 9.8m. It is considered that these distances have been dictated by the layout that seeks to maintain suitable distances to existing neighbours and to create a strong and positive street frontage. It is also acknowledged that potential occupiers will be ‘buying into’ this relationship and therefore reduced separation distances are considered to be appropriate in this case.

Given the significant levels difference across the site there will be a need for retaining features within the site, mainly in the rear gardens of dwellings. The retaining features in some places could be as high as 2.8m and it is noted that in most circumstance there will be a 1.8m high fence on top. Also a 3m high acoustic fence will be erected in the rear gardens of plots 1 to 8. Whilst some boundary treatments are high, it is considered that the rear gardens are of sufficient size to ensure the boundary treatments are not overbearing on the gardens or the properties, ensuring residents have an acceptable level of amenity.

The development will provide all future occupiers with an acceptable level of light and outlook. All dwellings would benefit from a private rear garden. It is therefore considered that future occupants of the site would have a good level of amenity in accordance with UDP policy DES7.

Pollution

Air Quality -

The development does not sit within the Greater Manchester Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), however due to the scale of the development there is potential for the number of vehicle movements generated to have a detrimental impact on air quality in the wider city region. There is also potential for fugitive dust emissions during the construction phase to impact on the AQMA and also nearby receptors. The application has been supported by an air quality impact assessment. The model inputs have been reviewed by the City’s Environmental Consultant and are considered to be representative of the conditions in the area and cumulative impacts have been considered.

It is important to note that the UK Limit value for nitrogen dioxide (long term exposure) is 40 µg/m3 (annual mean). Long term exposure to concentrations of NO2 are known to have a negative impact on health.

The model predicts that, at most receptors, the increase in emissions from road transport associated with the development will not result in any exceedance of the UK limit values. At two of the receptors (R2 – Manchester Road East and R9 – Walkden Road) concentrations (with development) are predicted to be 36.19 µg/m3 and 39.77 µg/m3 (annual mean) respectively. Both these receptors are within the boundary of the AQMA and located in close proximity to busy roads. The model demonstrates that road traffic emissions associated with increased traffic will increase pollutant concentrations within the AQMA.

Page 49 Whilst the model shows that the pollutants within the AQMA will increase, these values do not exceed the UK Limit value as set out above. Notwithstanding this, the City’s Environmental consultant considers that some mitigation is required to minimise the impact of increasing emissions in the wider area, and safeguard public health.

The application is accompanied by a travel plan promoting the use of public transport, S106 monies will be directed towards public transport and improvements to public rights of way and pedestrian connections, all of which will go some way towards reducing emissions. In addition, in line with the Greater Manchester Air Quality Action Plan, a condition to secure electric vehicle charging points for all residential properties with off road parking is recommended. The applicant has not agreed to provide the charge points, however has agreed to fit all dwellings with appropriate wiring to a suitable point to enable future occupiers to easily install a charge point when their needs require it. This is deemed to be appropriate as the technology for charge points is changing at a fast pace and being mindful of the time to build out the site and that future occupiers may not have electric cars from occupation. These connections will be secured via condition.

Noise –

The application is supported by a noise assessment which confirms that the noise climate in the area is affected by trains using the railway and to some degree Hilton Lane.

The assessment includes results from a noise monitoring survey to determine design standards for building elements to ensure internal noise levels are achieved. The report concludes that suitable acoustic glazing and standard trickle ventilation is capable of reducing internal noise levels to the required standards. Ventilation for first floor rooms in plots closest to the railway (plots 1 to 26, 43 to 48, 55 and 61) requires acoustic trickle vents to enable the required standard to be met.

With respect to external noise levels in garden areas closest to the railway and the road (i.e. those impacted by both noise sources), these will require mitigation in the form of a 3m high close boarded acoustic fence to the northern boundary of plots 1 to 8.

The City’s Environmental Consultant considered the noise assessment to be robust and the conclusions are accepted. As such there is no objection to the application on the grounds of noise subject to conditions securing noise mitigation in the form of acoustic glazing and ventilation and boundary treatments.

Land Contamination -

The site has previously been undeveloped in agricultural and leisure use; however the proposed end use is for residential properties with gardens, which are considered a sensitive end use with respect to land contamination risk.

A Phase 1 Preliminary Site Assessment & Phase 2 Site Investigation has been submitted in support of the application. The City’s Environmental Consultant has confirmed that the conclusions of the report are accepted and the final remediation strategy including detailed validation requirements is required prior to the development commencing which will be secured by condition.

Coal Mining

The application site falls within the defined Development High Risk Area; therefore within the application site and surrounding area there are coal mining features and hazards which need to be considered in relation to the determination of this planning application. The planning application has been supported by a Phase 1 Preliminary Site Assessment and a Phase 2 Site Investigation Report, which also incorporates a Coal Mining Risk Assessment. The Coal Authority concurs with the recommendations of the reports; that coal mining legacy potentially poses a risk to the proposed development and that a detailed scheme of remedial measures should be provided to the Local Planning Authority to treat the onsite recorded mine entries and provide details of the mitigation measures necessary to ensure the stability of the offsite mine entries, as well as deal with the shallow coal workings to ensure the safety and stability of the proposed development.

Such remedial works will be secured by condition, The remediation works will ensure the associated risks from developing the site will be minimised as far as possible, which is a concern of neighbouring residents.

Page 50 Sustainability

The application is supported by the Council’s Sustainability Checklist. The Design and Access Statement also outlines the applicant’s approach to sustainability which promotes a fabric first approach, to maximise the efficiency of the dwellings to be built in for the life of the dwelling. The use of energy will be reduced by good levels of thermal insulation, use of energy efficient lighting and the use of natural ventilation. The applicants approach to sustainability is considered to be acceptable and meets the requirements of policy EN22 of the Salford UDP and the Councils Sustainable Design and Construction SPD.

Planning Obligations

The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) explains the city council’s approach to the use of planning obligations. The SPD advises that a development of this nature in this part of the City should contribute towards open space, education, public realm, transport/highways improvements.

In terms of open space, the scheme proposes to provide 15 on-site allotments in lieu of the financial contribution for Youth and Adult facilities. The final layout of the allotments and design of associated infrastructure will be secured by condition as will the trigger for the allotments to be implemented on site and made available for use. The Council’s estates team has confirmed that the area of land where the allotments are sited will be retained in the Council’s ownership, therefore as this is within the City’s Councils control there is no requirement for the applicant to enter into a legal agreement to ensure that the allotments are retained in perpetuity.

No obligation is sought in respect of equipped children’s play space as the site falls within the catchment of the play area (500m) which is being provided on the adjacent development. As discussed above, the applicant has agreed to provide pedestrian linkages to the public footpath which runs along the southern boundary of the site which then will provide access beyond to the play space.

An open space financial obligation of £252,921 will be sought for improvements to Parr Fold Park and/or Peel Park and £170,570 will be directed to Wharton Playing Fields changing rooms and pitches.

In terms of education, in line with the formulas set out in the SPD, a financial contribution of £581,011 will be secured and directed towards existing or new primary school(s) within Pupil Planning Area 1 (Walkden North and Little Hulton) and/or Pupil Planning Area 2 Boothstown, Worsley & Ellenbrook.

Public realm contributions are considered necessary for this development to improve pedestrian linkages. A figure of £150,000 has been agreed. Initially this will be directed towards facilitating the links between the site and the PROW, as discussed earlier in the report. Any remaining monies will be directed towards improvements to the loop line as it heads towards the guided bus way.

A package of transport improvements is also considered necessary to mitigate the impact of development, details of this mitigation is set out in the highways section of this report. In addition, the following sums have been secured.

 £48,000 towards an upgrade to pedestrian and cycle movements at the roundabout at Newearth Road and Hilton Lane.  £10,000 to improve public transport - this will be directed towards improvements to Walkden Train Station which may include improved access to the station from the development site.  £275,880 to fund an extension of the existing shuttle bus which currently serves the adjacent development and/or to fund changes to the route/frequency of the existing service or to fund additional journeys to the bus services numbered 29, 36, and 38 which also serve the development.

In respect of comments made about the applicant’s ability to legally extend the current bus service, as stated above this money can be used in a number of ways to improve the route/frequency of buses that serve the development, not just the VH2 bus. It will be for the Council to negotiate contracts with the bus providers and TfGM.

Policy OB1 of the planning obligations SPD identifies that the site is within a mid/high value area; given this there is a requirement that 20% of the houses on site should be affordable with a tenure spit of 75%

Page 51 social/affordable rented and 25% intermediate tenure. Given that the scheme proposed 209 houses, there is a requirement for 42 dwellings, comprising of 32 social/affordable rent dwellings and 10 of an intermediate tenure.

The applicant has engaged with the Council’s Planning and Housing Division and Derive (Councils local housing company) and through negotiation a scheme consisting of 42 affordable homes has been agreed in principle, subject to contract. The affordable homes will be secure via a section 106 agreement. These affordable dwellings will be provided on site, located in 3 groups of 10 and a group of 12. This is considered to meet the requirements in terms of pepper potting as per policy OB1.

Objections

The majority of the issues raised in representations have been given due consideration within the appraisal section of this report. However there are some objections which are not covered in the matters above, these will be given due consideration below.

It is noted in representations that the community use the site to play and walk dogs on. Whilst this is not disputed, the land is in private ownership and as such is not publically accessible space. It has also been noted in the objections that the land has been sign posted as private land with no trespassing.

There have been a significant number of objections to the scheme on the grounds that local services such as doctors, dentists, schools, are already significantly over subscribed and emergency services over stretched and that the provision of more housing will make this situation worse. The provision of services such as doctors, dentists and emergency services are planned and delivered at a strategic level to meet demand from a wider area than that of the application site. Therefore, the provision of these services is outside the remit of this planning application. In respect of primary schools, the application will make a full contribution towards education in accordance with the Planning Obligations SPD.

In respect of the objections regarding the amount of development in this area and that there is too much housing development. The assessment of the planning application does account for cumulative impacts from other committed developments in the area therefore this has been given due consideration in the consideration of this application.

In respect of the construction period, neighbouring residents may experience issues as identified by objectors. However, construction activity is temporary in nature and considered to be an acceptable consequence of development. A condition will also be imposed to address amenity related issues during the construction phase of development.

The objections regarding the submission date of the planning application are noted; however this has no bearing on the determination of a planning application, which has been publicised in line with legislation. There have been some comments regarding the plans and neighbour letters not being available to view on line. Members of the public have had issues with viewing plans; this was noted and additional time for representations to be received was provided by the case officer. In terms of being able to review the representations online, the Council does not publish these to the website, however representations can be viewed by appointment in the Council offices.

Whilst objectors have asked that an alternative access point into the development should be explored, the Local Planning Authority has to determine the application as submitted. The proposed access into the development is considered to be acceptable from a highways perspective. Also, in respect of the site being used for affordable housing, the scheme is considered to comply with the Council’s requirements for the provision of affordable units in this part of the City.

In respect of there being a conflict of interest as the City Council own the site, the planning application has been considered on its planning merits, ownership is not a material planning issue, nor is the financial benefits of the scheme for either the landowner or the developer. Workmen on site and that the affordable housing offer has been agreed with the Council are not indications that this application has been pre-determined; the planning application will be considered openly in accordance with national and local planning policies and procedures.

The loss of a view and impact on house prices are also not a material planning issues and therefore cannot be afforded any weigh in the determination of this planning application.

Page 52 In respect of the objections regarding the increased opportunity for crime, the scheme has been designed to discourage crime and it would be unreasonable to assume that this development would increase crime or antisocial behavior.

In respect that planning obligations are not clear in the submission, the package of planning obligations has been discussed and confirmed during the course of the application. The package of planning obligations deemed to be suitable to mitigate the impacts of the development is set out in the planning obligation section of this report

Value Added

The applicant has engaged in extensive pre-application discussions on proposals for developing the site. Additional information has been submitted during the course of the application to address consultee and officer concerns and also to limit the number of pre commencement conditions.

Recommendation

Planning permission be granted subject to the following planning conditions and that:

A financial contribution of to be directed towards:

 £275,880 Shuttle Bus contribution – To fund an extension of the existing shuttle bus which currently serves the development site and/or to fund changes to the route/frequency of the existing service. Or to fund additional journeys to the bus services numbered 29, 36, and 38 which also serve the development.  £252,921 Open space contribution – Improvements to Parr Fold Park and/or Peel Park.  £170,570 Sports Pitch contribution – Improvements to Wharton Playing Fields changing rooms and pitches.  £150,000 Public Realm contribution – To direct some or all of the monies towards either improvements to the loop line as it heads towards the guided bus way and/or improved connections to the site including works to improve pubic rights of way which serve the site.  £581,011 Education contribution – To increase capacity to an existing or new primary school(s) within Pupil Planning Area 1 (Walkden North and Little Hulton) and/or Pupil Planning Area 2 Boothstown, Worsley & Ellenbrook.  £10,000 Walkden Train Station contribution – Improvements to the station or works to provide improved access to station from the development site.  £48,000 Newearth Road and Hilton Lane Mini Roundabout – Highway infrastructure improvement scheme to improve the pedestrian / cycle facilities.  Affordable Housing – 20% affordable housing to be provided onsite. This equates to 42 units.

2) That the applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such a legal agreement;

3) The authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued (subject to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal agreement;

Conditions

1. The development must be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Planning Layout BHM091/PL01 Rev U Hilton Lane, Worsley All House Types submitted on 11th March 2019

Page 53 Secondary Package Substation Brick Built with Roof Variants Rev B

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. Prior to development commencing on the allotments and notwithstanding the details as shown on plan BHM091/PL01 Rev S, full details of the allotments including layout, car parking, associated infrastructure and boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The allotments shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and be made available for use prior to the completion of the 150th dwelling.

4. The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation for a Programme of Archaeological Work, P100021.01.1 vs 2.0 dated March 2019. Notwithstanding the programme at section 2.6, no development shall take place until a scheme for the timing / phasing of implementation works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved Written Scheme of Investigation and the approved timing / phasing of implementation works.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: Any work on the site has the potential to damage archaeological assets and so the programme of works is required before any development commences.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: Any works on site could affect any contamination which may be present and hinder the effective remediation of any contamination causing a risk to the health of future occupiers and harm to the environment, hence the initial investigation must be carried out before works commence

Page 54 Reason: In the interests of public safety in accordance with paragraphs 178 and 179 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

8. Prior to occupation of any plot the acoustic mitigation scheme (including glazing and passive ventilation requirements) as described in the submitted acoustic report (Noise Assessment, November 2018, ref: R1421-REP01-JW, Red Acoustics) shall be installed. Prior to occupation of the residential units a Site Completion Report confirming that all necessary noise attenuation measures identified in the assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

9. Prior to the occupation of plots 1 to 8, the 3m high acoustic fence shall be installed as shown on site layout drawing BHM091/BT01 Rev F. The fence shall have a minimum density of 20kg/m2 and constructed of a material with no holes or openings. Once erected the fence shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with policy EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason -To enable any proposed changes of level to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: The levels of the site need to be understood prior to works commencing on site as it could affect how ground works are planned and carried out.

11. No development shall take place, including any works of excavation or demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall include:

Page 55 A log of all reported instances shall be kept on record and made available for inspection by the local a planning authority upon request; and (xi) an intended date for the commencement of development and, following commencement, evidence of the material start on site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbours in accordance with policies DES7 and EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the NPPF.

12. Prior to occupation the applicant shall provide a scheme for the wiring to facilitate the provision of a single electric vehicle charging point for all residential properties with off road parking. The charging point shall be capable of Type 2 "Fast" charging, and wired to a dedicated 30A spur to provide 7KV charging capacity.

13. The development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the Reasonable Avoidance Measures Method Statement for Great Crested Newts dated 4th February 2019 by Rachel Hacking Ecology.

Reason: To protected species in accordance with the Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

14. The development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the Himalayan Balsam Method Statement dated 4th February 2019 by Rachel Hacking Ecology.

Reason - It is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 to introduce, plant or cause to grow wild any plant listed in Schedule 9 part 2 of the Act.

15. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with the drainage strategy as presented in Drainage Strategy, Hilton Lane Worlsey, 30231/SRG March 2019.

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 56 18. (a) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the formation of any banks, terraces or other earthworks, hard surfaced areas and materials, boundary treatments, external lighting, planting plans, specifications and schedules (including planting size, species and numbers/densities), existing plants / trees to be retained, a scheme for the supplementary planting of the hedgerow along the southern boundary of the site and a scheme for the timing / phasing of implementation works.

19. No landscaping works, pursuant to condition 18, shall take place until a Landscape Creation and Management Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and the approved timing / phasing of implementation as agreed under condition 18(b) or within 18 months of first occupation and retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and to support protected species in accordance with the policy DES9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan, Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document and the National Planning Policy Framework.

21. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement [AMS, Drawing No: P.918.17.02 Rev. C].

Page 57 23. Notwithstanding the details submitted within the Travel Plan, the development hereby approved shall not be brought into first occupation until an updated Travel Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

24. A scheme for the provision of pedestrian links from the site to the Public Right of Way W135 and W136 together with a timetable for implementation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The pedestrian links shall be constructed in accordance with the approved scheme and timetable for implementation and shall remain free from obstruction thereafter.

Notes for Applicant:

3. Ordinary watercourse consent will be required for any works to the watercourse. Refer to https://www.salford.gov.uk/media/388215/ordinary-watercourse-consent.pdf

6. In respect of condition 7 any mitigation measures proposed shall first be agreed with The Coal Authority's Permitting Team.

Page 58 7. Under the Coal Industry Act 1994 any intrusive activities, including initial site investigation boreholes, and/or any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings/coal mine entries for ground stability purposes require the prior written permission of The Coal Authority, since such activities can have serious public health and safety implications. Failure to obtain permission will result in trespass, with the potential for court action. In the event that you are proposing to undertake such work in the Forest of Dean local authority area our permission may not be required; it is recommended that you check with us prior to commencing any works. Application forms for Coal Authority permission and further guidance can be obtained from The Coal Authority's website at: https://www.gov.uk/get-a-permit-to-deal-with-a-coal-mine-on-your-property

9. Where development is proposed over areas of coal and past coal workings at shallow depth, The Coal Authority is of the opinion that applicants should consider wherever possible removing the remnant shallow coal. This will enable the land to be stabilised and treated by a more sustainable method; rather than by attempting to grout fill any voids and consequently unnecessarily sterilising the nation's asset. Prior extraction of surface coal requires an Incidental Coal Agreement from The Coal Authority. Further information can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/get-a-licence-for-coal-mining

10. The applicant's attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter from United Utilities dated 29th January 2019.

11. A public sewer crosses the site. Please liaise with United Utilities in relation to building over or diverting the sewer or about requirements for an easement.

Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5b PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

APPLICATION No: 18/71836/FUL APPLICANT: Mr Mingliang Chen LOCATION: Block B, Sentinel House, Peel Street, Eccles, M30 0NG PROPOSAL: Continued use of the 1st to 14th Floor of Block B as a 159 bed hotel with retention of an extension to accommodate a lift and retention of extraction fans, erection of cycle parking and bin stores with changes to car parking layout. WARD: Eccles

Description of Site and Surrounding Area

Sentinel House is a 15 storey, two wing building (Block A and Block B) located in Eccles Town Centre. The office block is bounded by a Vauxhall Dealership to the north and two office blocks and Eccles Market Hall are located to the east. An Aldi supermarket and a residential tower occupy the land to the south, whilst a series of terraced residential properties occupy land to the west.

Block B of Sentinel House is the wing of the building which fronts Peel Street. There is a large tarmacadam surfaced car park to the rear of the block with areas of soft landscaping on the Peel Street frontage.

Job Centre Plus occupies the ground floor and first floor of Block A with office space above. Block B is occupied by an office at ground floor with the Milton Hotel occupying the floors above.

Page 61 Background

In May 2015 planning permission was granted by planning panel for the proposed change of use of Block B of Sentinel House from offices (B1) to a 168 bed hotel (C1). This proposal included a double height entrance foyer and bar at ground and first floor levels and at second floor there would be a restaurant and kitchen.

The applicant has implemented the change of use to a hotel but did not implement any of the extensions proposed in the 2015 application. In addition, the 2015 permission has a number of conditions which have not been complied with as such this application seeks to regularize what has been implemented on site retrospectively.

Description of Proposal

Planning permission is sought for the continued use of the 1st to 14th Floors of Block B to a Hotel (C1). In the 2015 application a direct ground floor entrance into the building was proposed from Peel Street. The hotel, as operating today, is accessed via the existing shared entrance at the corner of the building which also provides access into the offices within Block A. These entrance arrangements will be retained.

On the first floor there is a bar lounge, reception and WCs. On the 2nd floor there is a restaurant, kitchen and WCs. The hotel has 159 bedrooms (9 less than the 2015 approval) across the 3rd to 14th floors and there is a mix of single, double, disabled access, twin and family rooms.

As stated above the extensions as proposed in 2015 have not been implemented. However a lift shaft and extraction fans have been installed on the front and rear of the building, therefore this application seeks planning permission for the retention of these.

In respect of the 2015 permission a bus layby was proposed along Peel Street and a condition was attached that required this to be installed prior to occupation. Also a car parking layout was agreed and conditioned. The bus lay by proposed in 2015 has not been provided and coaches have been dropping off and picking up from within the car park.

During the course of this current application the car parking layout has been updated to provide sufficient manoeuvring space and drop off within the car park for coaches. This has resulted in an amendment to the layout of the car park to provide for 89 cars (30 allocated for the offices and 59 for the hotel). The layout has also removed the current exit point from the car park which is to the north of block B and this area will be utilised for bin storage. An additional bin and cycle store will be provided within the car park, along the northern boundary, this area will provide bin and cycle storage for the existing offices. 20 cycle racks will also be provided to the front of the building close to the entrance fronting Peel Street.

Publicity

Site Notice: Non HH Article 15 Date Displayed: 14 September 2018 Reason: Article 13

Press Advert: Manchester Weekly News Salford EditionDate Published: 13 September 2018 Reason: Article 15 Standard Press Notice

Neighbour Notification

Neighbouring properties were notified of this planning application on the 6th September 2018. Additional letters were sent on 21st January 2019 and on 23rd May 2019 notifying neighbouring properties that amended plans had been received. Further letters were sent notifying neighbouring residents that the description of development had changed on the 12th July 2019.

Representations

One letter of objection has been received. This raises the following issues: - The car parking demand should be assessed for the hotel, any future residential development and the retained offices.

Page 62 - Request that spaces are specifically set aside for the Job Centre staff and visitors and this be secured by condition. - The car parking layout will move disabled spaces from the front of the building to the rear which will increase distance for disabled users to travel to the job centre. - The Crime Impact Statement is dated September 2014 and therefore does not provide a current assessment of the risk of crime. - The use of the building as a hotel has resulted in a number of significant adverse operational and security impacts as the entrance to the hotel is not clearly defined. - Request that a Construction Management Plan is prepared to minimise access to building and car parking is maintained at all times and the environmental disturbance from noise, vibration and dust is minimized. - The new access arrangements will lead to queuing on the highway as a result of car queuing to get into the site and queuing to exit - Questioned whether the provision of the taxi rank has impacted upon the pavement widths and accessibility for wheelchair users. - The writer also believes that the entrance is being blocked up and this comprises the graded entrance for wheelchair users.

Relevant Site History

93/31887/TEL - Erection of antennae - No Objections - 1 November 1993 93/32069/CLUD - Application for Certificate of Lawfulness for School of Nursing. - Approve - 18 March 1994 00/41285/TEL - Installation of stub mast accommodating three - four stack antennae, one GPS antenna and associated handrailings with hooped access ladder - Approve - 6 October 2000 03/46048/COU - Change of use from offices to temporary use as a clinic - Approve - 22 May 2003 06/52290/FUL - Installation of a new exit door and construction of new footpath link enclosed by low wall to Albert Street - Approve - 21 April 2006 06/52680/ADV - Display of internally illuminated projecting sign, non-illuminated fascia and opening hours panel – Approve 16 June 2006 08/56470/TEL56 - Prior Notification for the removal of existing 5m stub tower with thee 'four stack dipole' antennae to be replaced with three panel antennae pole mounted on existing plant room roof, new rooftop equipment cabin, existing 300mm dish relocated with two new small GPS antennae - No Objections - 11 June 2008 08/57216/ADV - 'Display of non-illuminated pvc advertising banner - Approve - 30 January 2009 09/58200/COU - Change of use from D1 (non-residential institution) to A2 (Professional and Financial Services) - Approve - 14 December 2009 09/58304/FUL - Construction of new disabled access ramp - Approve - 22 December 2009 11/59938/COU - Change of use of Block B to a D1 non-residential use – Approve – 1 April 2011 14/65242/FUL - Proposed Change of Use from Offices (B1) to Hotel (C1) with associated bar and restaurant from ground floor up to and including floor 11 of Side B, Sentinel House, together with extensions to ground floor entrance foyer - Approve - 4 December 2014 14/65475/P3JPA - Notification of a change of use of top 3 no. floors on Block B, Sentinel house from office use (B1) to dwellings (C1), incorporating 18 no. apartments. - No Objections - 8 December 2014 15/66108/FUL - Proposed change of use from offices (B1) to hotel (C1), Sentinel House together with extensions to ground floor entrance foyer and associated bar and restaurant (resubmission of 14/65242/FUL) - Approve - 14 May 2015 16/68231/DISCON - Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 4 - Landscaping, 5 - Vehicular Access, 6 – Car parking, 7 - Cycle Parking Provision, 8 - Vehicular Signage, 9 - Air Extraction, 10 - External Lighting and 11 - CCTV Scheme attached to planning permission 15/ 66108/FUL. - Condition Request determined – Request Determined 17/70777/FUL - Variation of conditions 2 (approved plans), Removal of condition 3 (Materials) and Amend the time frame on conditions 5 (coach access), 6 (car parking layout), 7(cycle parking provision ) And 8 (vehicular directional signage scheme), attached to planning permission 15/66108/FUL - Application Withdrawn - 11 April 2018 18/72131/P3JPA - Prior notification for proposed change of use from offices (B1) to dwelling houses (C3) Floors 2-14 (90 Apartments) – Refused

Consultations

Design For Security – Recommend a full Crime Impact Statement be undertaken and submitted in support of the planning application.

Page 63 Senior Drainage Engineer - No objection but advises that all drainage works are undertaken in accordance with Building Regulations Approved Document H.

Highways - No objection subject to conditions.

Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) – No objection - the highway matters have already been agreed previously with officers at Salford City Council and this application does not affect the quantum of development agreed for the C1 Hotel use, nor does it propose additional floorspace for the B1 Office use, there are no matters that require comments from TfGM.

Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Land - No objection to this retrospective application providing that the agreed fume extraction system has been installed.

Planning Policy

Development Plan Policy

Unitary Development Plan ST9 - Retail, Leisure, Social Community Provision This policy states that the provision of a comprehensive and accessible range of retail, leisure, social and community facilities will be secured by, protecting and enhancing the vitality and viability of existing town and neighbourhood centres, adopting a sequential approach to the location of new retail and leisure development and facilitating enhanced education, health and community provision that will be maintain and enhanced.

Unitary Development Plan S1 - Retail Leisure Dev. in Town Neighbourhood Centres This policy states that planning permission will only be granted for retail and leisure where it would be of an appropriate scale to the centre; is or can be accessible by a choice of means of transport, walking and cycling; would not give rise to unacceptable levels of traffic congestion or highway safety; make car park facilities, where practicable available to all short stay visitors; be of a high standard of design; would not have an unacceptable impact on environmental quality or residential amenity.

Unitary Development Plan E5 - Develop. in Established Employment Areas This policy states that planning permission will only be granted for the reuse or redevelopment of sites or buildings within an established employment area for non-employment uses where the development would not compromise the operating conditions of other adjoining employment uses, and where one or more of the following apply: a) The developer can demonstrate there is no current or likely future demand for the site for employment purposes b) There is a strong case for rationalising land uses or creating open space c) The development would contribute to the implementation of an approved regeneration strategy or plan for the area d) The site is allocated for another use in the UDP.

Unitary Development Plan DES8 - Alterations and Extensions This policy states that planning permission will only be granted for alterations or extensions to existing buildings that respect the general scale, character, rhythm, proportions, details and materials of the original structure and complement the general character of the surrounding area.

Unitary Development Plan DES9 - Landscaping

Page 64 This policy states that hard and soft landscaping should be provided where appropriate that is of a high quality and would enhance the design of the development, not detract from the safety and security of the area and would enhance the attractiveness and character of the built environment.

Unitary Development Plan A6 - Taxis This policy states that major trip generating developments will be required to make satisfactory provision for hackney carriages and private hire taxis. Taxi booking offices will only be permitted where they would not have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity or highway safety.

Unitary Development Plan A10 - Provision of Car, Cycle, Motorcycle Park This policy states that there should be adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s minimum standards; maximum car parking standards should not be exceeded; and parking facilities should be provided consistent with the provision and maintenance of adequate standards of safety and security.

Other Material Planning Considerations

National Planning Policy

National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Practice Guidance

Local Planning Policy

Salford West Development Framework

It is not considered that there are any local finance considerations that are material to the application

Page 65 through a number of further stages, including examination at a public inquiry, before they are adopted. Adoption is expected to take place towards the end of 2020 or early 2021.

Now the GMSF and Local Plan are published documents decisions, including those by the Council and ultimately by inspectors on appeal, are able to start to afford them some weight as emerging policies. However, as the weight given depends on the stage of the plan; unresolved objections; and consistency with the Government’s policies, the weight currently to be attached to the GMSF and Local Plan is only limited. The weight moving forward will be reviewed and is likely to depend on the extent to which there are unresolved objections emerging from the consultation process.

Appraisal

Principle

In the previous approved 2015 application the applicant robustly justified that there was no current demand for the building for employment purposes and that the development would contribute to the implementation of the Salford West Development Framework and would assist in enhancing the vitality and viability of Eccles Town Centre, in accordance with policies E5, S1 and ST9 of the UDP. Therefore the principle of a hotel on this site has already been established as acceptable.

Design

This application seeks retrospect planning permission for the installation of extraction fans, the extraction fans have been installed in to the front and rear elevation of the building. The applicant has confirmed that the extraction fans have been erected in accordance with the detail agreed by condition on the 2015 application. The extract fans have been installed in places which respect the proportions of the building and as such their visual impact when viewed with the wider building is minimal.

The lift shaft which has been erected on the rear of the building is considered to be appropriate in terms of its size and proportions. However, the lift shaft has a white finish which is not considered to respect the finish of the existing building. For this reason it is considered to be unacceptable and contrary to policy DES8 of the UDP. However, it is considered that should the lift shaft be appropriately clad or colour treated it would be acceptable. Therefore a condition is recommended that requires details of a facing material for the lift to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the LPA. Subject to this condition the provision of a lift shaft is deemed to be acceptable in design terms.

The previous application conditioned a landscaping scheme to be provided. The applicant has submitted an indicative landscape scheme with this application. This does not reflect the amended site layout which is currently being considered therefore it is recommended that a landscaping scheme forms a condition of the permission. It is also noted that the 2015 application conditioned an external lighting scheme and CCTV scheme. The applicant has confirmed that the CCTV scheme has been implemented however the external lighting has not, therefore the landscape condition as now recommended will seek to secure details of any external lighting proposed.

Whilst bin and cycle stores have been shown on the site plan and their locations are deemed to be acceptable, there are no details on how these elements will look and the materials they will be constructed from. It is particularly important that the bin store along the Peel Street frontage is constructed from high quality, robust materials. As such details of the bin and cycle stores will be secured by condition.

In light of the above, and subject to conditions, it is considered that the scheme would accord with policies DES1, DES8 and DES10 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Amenity

The use of the building as a hotel was previously considered acceptable in terms of residential amenity in the 2015 permission. The applicant has confirmed that the fume extraction, as approved by condition attached to the 2015 permission, has been installed. Environmental Services have confirmed that they have not received any noise or odour complaints regarding the operating hotel. Therefore the development is considered to accord with UDP policies DES7 and EN17.

Page 66 Highways and Car Parking

The trips generated from the development were fully considered and deemed to be acceptable in the 2015 permission, in which it was considered that the proposed C1 use was unlikely to result in a severe impact on the highway as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in accordance with UDP policies A8 and A10 As this current proposal is for less bedrooms, less car parking is to be provided on site and given the application site is in an area with excellent public transport links the view is maintained that the proposed use is unlikely to result in a severe impact.

In respect of the new access arrangements into the site, these have been prepared in line with comments from the Local Highway Authority (LHA). Full details of off-site highway works and the provision of the tactile paving and renewal of footpaths will be secured by condition. In respect of the objector’s concerns about the new site entrance, the Council’s road safety officer confirms the egress is unlikely to compromise the ingress as there is no capacity constraint on Albert Street.

In the 2015 application 105 car parking spaces was proposed (to be shared between the existing offices and the hotel). In this current application the car parking provision has been reduced to 89 to allow for coaches to access the site. The current layout still provides for 5 disabled bays as previously approve in 2015, in order to address the concerns of the objector the disabled car parking has been bought closer to the entrance of the building. The level of car parking for the development is considered to still accord with the Council’s adopted maximum parking standards. In respect of allocating spaces specifically for the Job Centre, this is beyond the remit of planning and is a private matter for the Job Centre to raise with the owner of the building.

In respect of cycle parking, two areas of cycle parking have been shown on the plan, one within the car parking and visitor cycle parking close to the main entrance. No elevational treatment has been submitted for the cycle parking store in the car park and there are no details on how bikes will be made secure within the store. Therefore a condition is recommended to agree these details.

Planning Obligations

In the 2015 application it was considered that the change of use would not generate the need for an obligation to mitigate its impact when the three statutory tests for planning obligations are applied i.e. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. Given this scheme is for less bedrooms, does not include any additional floorspace and there has been material change in the area it is not considered that a different view than that taken previously can be robustly justified.

Other Matters

Whilst the request for a Crime Impact Statement is noted by the Design for Security Team, the principle of the development was established through previous planning applications. There are no significant extensions to the building which would warrant crime and design input and it is noted that the hotel has been operating. Therefore a CIS is not considered necessary to determine the planning application.

In respect of signage and management issues which are being experienced, this is a private matter that cannot be controlled via the planning system.

It is not considered that the works proposed warrant the need for a construction method statement to be conditioned.

In respect of disable access, the proposed pedestrian walkway through the car park is 1.4m and 2.2m wide which is considered acceptable for wheelchair users. Aso there are no plans to block up the entrance to the building therefore it will still benefit from the access ramp.

Recommendation

Approve subject to the following conditions

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Page 67 Proposed Site Plan 11.721/400 Rev H Ground Floor Plan 11.721/401 Rev C First Floor Plan 11.721/402 Rev F Second Floor Plan 11.721/403 Rev D Third Floor Plan 11.721/404 Rev B Fourth Floor Plan 11.721/405 Rev B Fifth Floor Plan 11.721/406 Rev B Sixth Floor Plan 11.721/407 Rev B Seventh to Thirteenth Floor Plan 11.721/408 Rev B Fourteenth Floor Plan 11.721/409 Rev B Proposed Elevations 11.721/410 Rev C

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2. Within 3 months of the date of this decision, the vehicle parking, coach parking and taxi rank as shown on the approved plans to serve the development hereby permitted shall be implemented and made available for use and retained thereafter for their intended purpose. The disabled spaces shall be available for any occupiers on the building.

3. Within 1 month of the date of this decision, a scheme for works to the adopted highway outside the application site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme should include but not be limited to:

1. Full construction details of the access and egress points on Albert Street; 2. Full construction details of a dropped kerb on Peel Street; 3. Reinstatement of redundant egress points as continuous footway; 4. Resurfacing of the agreed section of the footway as shown on approved site plan; 5. The design and construction details of tactile paving; and 6. A timetable for delivery.

Such scheme as is agreed shall be implemented on site in accordance with the details and timetable for delivery approved

Reason: In the interests of the safe and efficient operation of the highway network and to minimise potential conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and other road users in accordance with policies DES2, A2 and A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. Notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings hereby approved, within one month of the date of this decision, details of secure cycle parking to serve the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved cycle parking shall be implemented and made available for its intended use within 3 months of the date the details are approved and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To encourage more sustainable modes of travel and to safeguard the visual amenity of the area in accordance with policies ST14, DES1, A2 and A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. Within 1 month of the date of this decision a scheme for the external treatment of the lift shaft to the rear of the building should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented on site within 3 months of the date the details are approved and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policies DES1 and DES8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 68 6. Notwithstanding the details on the approved plans, the site shall be treated in accordance with a landscape scheme, which shall include full details of trees and shrubs to be planted, walls, fences, boundary and surface treatment, external lighting (luminance levels, light spillage and hours of use) and a timetable for implementation. The development shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved scheme and timetable for implementation and any trees or shrubs dying within five years of planting shall be replaced with the same species within twelve months.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policies DES 1, DES9 and DES10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

7. Notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings hereby approved, within one month of the date of this decision details of bin stores shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved bin stores shall be implemented and made available for their intended use within 3 months of the date the details are approved and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity in accordance with policy DES1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informatives

1. The works on the adopted highway will be delivered by an S171 agreement and Greater Manchester Roads Activities Permit Scheme (GMRAPS). (Please find contact detail below).

The developer to request the Local Highway Authority to undertake a dilapidation Survey prior to construction and on completion of the development. This is to ensure the adopted footway and carriageways are not damaged by the construction of the development and to ensure the works on the adopted highway are properly implemented. (Please find contact detail below).

Must protect the construction of footway, carriageway and utility services. Existing utility services that are affected by the development would need the applicant to seek approval from relevant service companies prior to any highway working to be undertaken adjacent to any utility services, this includes diverting and protecting of services.

Regarding to adopted carriageway and footways, any amendments to the carriageway need to be re- instated using similar materials or material than is approved by the council’s highway engineers.

Useful contacts:

Dilapidation Survey: Developer shall contact John Horrocks to arrange a full dilapidation/Condition Survey of all adopted highways surrounding the site prior to works commencing on site. Tel: 0161 603 4046

Highway Permits/Licensing: Applications for all forms of highway permits/licenses shall be made in advanced of any works being undertaken on the adopted highway Note: NO boundary fencing shall be erected or positioned on any part of the adopted highway with first seeking the relevant permits/licenses from the Local Highway Authority Tel: 0161 603 4046

Traffic Management: Developer shall contact Robert Owen for all matters related to Traffic Regulation Order. Tel: 0161 779 4848

2. In respect of condition 6 the landscaping scheme should include the following: - details on the size of the tree pits proposed. - tree sizes should be increased from 12 -14cm to 14-16cm to improve initial street scene impact and reduce the chances of vandalism. - that the use of pea gravel could be kicked out of tree grills etc. onto tarmac or paved areas and could become a potential slipping hazard unless regularly swept and placed back onto the beds.

Page 69 Page 70 Agenda Item 5c PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

APPLICATION No: 18/72311/FUL APPLICANT: Mr Stuart Parks LOCATION: Land Adjacent To The AJ Bell Stadium, Eccles, M30 7EY, PROPOSAL: Erection of Class A1 foodstore with associated access, car parking, servicing and hard and soft landscaping WARD: Irlam

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

This application relates to a vacant plot of land within the Barton Strategic Area, as defined by Policy E1 of the City Council’s Unitary Development Plan. It measures 0.72ha in size and sits between the A J Bell Stadium and its associated car park to the east and Salteye Brook and the new Salford Western Gateway highway to the north and west. Vehicular access is currently achieved onto the land via Stadium Way to the south-west, although it is understood that this is the product of a temporary construction route used to construct the Western Gateway scheme.

The site itself largely comprises open scrubland and grass, with the land sloping downwards to meet Salteye Brook, which flows within a cutting. The eastern boundary briefly diverts into the site to circumvent an existing sub-station structure.

The wider area comprises of a mixture of uses. Established residential estates are located to the north and north-west, either side of Liverpool Road (A57). Also to the north-west is the Barley Farm public house and restaurant. Land north of the A J Bell Stadium benefits from planning permission to erect a 21,367sqm non-food bulky retail store; this consent has been partially implemented however no construction work has taken place at the time of writing. To the south-west is the Port Salford

Page 71 Masterplan area, which benefits from planning permission for 154,000sqm of distribution warehousing, along with highways works, a new rail link and a shipping wharf. To date one of the distribution warehouses and a supporting access road has been completed. Barton City Airport is located to the north-west, on the opposite side of the A57 highway.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This application proposes to erect a new foodstore (Use Class A1) with associated access, car parking and landscaping on the site which, it is understood, would be occupied by Aldi. The gross external floor-area (GEA) of the store would be 1,862sqm (GIA = 1,786sqm), of which 1,315sqm would operate as the public sales area.

The rectangular-shaped building would be set back from the highway and positioned adjacent to the eastern site boundary. Kingspan cladding panels and glass have been identified as the principal external materials, set atop a black brickwork plinth.

A new vehicular access would be created off Stadium Way, which would lead to a 115-space car park that wraps around the southern and western sides of the store. The service yard is shown at the northern end of the plot. The submitted site plan indicates that new tree planting and soft landscaping would be installed along the Stadium Way frontage and western boundary.

VALUE ADDED

The following enhancements to the development have been secured as a result of pre-application discussions and during the course of the planning application:  Improvements to landscaping scheme to green-up the car park  Design enhancements, including increased areas of glazing to elevation facing down Stadium Way to provide active frontage.  Installation of electric vehicle charging points for customers  Provision of a more sustainable drainage scheme  Introduction of a wildflower grass-land to the western side of the site, along with bird and bat boxes, to achieve net gains in biodiversity.  Delivery of off-site highways works to improve queuing capacity along the northern approach to the Salford Western Gateway / Liverpool Road junction.  Re-location of existing bus stops so that public transport is more accessible to users of the development, the Barley Farm PH & the A J Bell Stadium.  Delivery of improvements to public rights of way between the site and the residential estate north of Liverpool Road.

PUBLICITY

Site Notice: Non HH Site notice departure Date Displayed: 29 October 2018 Reason: Article 13 Departure from UDP

Site Notice: Non HH Article 15 Date Displayed: 14 September 2018 Reason: Wider Publicity

Site Notice: Non HH Affecting public right of way Date Displayed: 14 September 2018 Reason: Article 13 affect public right of way

Page 72 Press Advert: Manchester Weekly News Salford Edition Date Published: 8 November 2018 Reason: Departure

Press Advert: Manchester Weekly News Salford Edition Date Published: 20 September 2018 Reason: Article 15 Standard Press Notice

RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

AJ Bell Stadium and adjacent land 19/72881/NMA – Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission 11/60383/HYBEIA for amendments to conditions 7, 9, 10, 19, 21, 28, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 49, 50 and 51 – Approved, 28 January 2019

19/72882/NMA - Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission 15/66923/REM for amendment on conditions 1 and 2 – Approved, 28 January 2019

15/66923/REM - Application for all matters reserved for the erection of a free standing 21,367sqm of non-food bulk retail development with associated car parking – Approved with Conditions, 11th April 2016

11/60383/HYBEIA - Full application for the erection of a 20,000 capacity community stadium with associated integrated facilities including offices, players facilities, hospitality, concessions and community, executive and media rooms to be constructed in 3 phases; two outdoor sports pitches, (one grass and one artificial); community changing facility; and new access off Liverpool Road together with associated car parking and landscaping. Outline application with all matters reserved for free standing 21,367 square metres of non-food bulk retail development. Variation to condition 13 on previously approved planning application 10/58995/HYBEIA. – Approved with Conditions, 5th October 2011.

Land to south of Stadium Way 19/73122/FUL – Application for the variation of condition one (Temporary Consent) attached to planning permission 18/72491/FUL – Approved 12 April 2019.

18/72491/FUL - Development of car showroom (Sui Generis) with associated surface car park and boundary treatments for a temporary period of 3 years – Approved, 21 December 2018.

Port Salford - Land between Manchester Ship Canal and Liverpool Road, Eccles 17/70437/REM - Details of reserved matters for layout, scale, appearance and landscaping for the provision of one warehouse building accommodating 35,497sqm (GIA) of B8 floor-space, pursuant to planning permission 14/65747/EIAHYB, along with associated gatehouse, car/cycle parking; boundary treatments; landscaping and other external works – Approved with Conditions, 22nd December 2017

17/70438/REM - Details of reserved matters for layout, scale, appearance and landscaping for the provision of two warehouse buildings accommodating 81,189sqm (GIA) of B8 floor-space, pursuant to planning permission 14/65747/EIAHYB, along with associated gatehouses, car/cycle parking; boundary treatments; landscaping and other external works – Approved with conditions, 22nd December 2017.

14/65747/EIAHYB – Variation of conditions 9 (completion of Part WGIS) and 10 (rail link in place) on planning permission 13/63413/EIAHYB – Approved with Conditions, 31st March 2015

Page 73 03/47344/EIAHYB - Multi-modal freight interchange comprising rail served distribution warehousing, rail link and sidings, inter-modal and ancillary facilities including a canal quay and berths, vehicle parking, hardstanding, landscaping, re-routing of Salteye Brook, a new signal controlled access to the A57 and related highway works including realignment of the A57 and improvements to the M60 (Port Salford). Canal crossing and associated roads and other highway improvements as part of the Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme (WGIS) – Approved with Conditions, 4th August 2009.

CONSULTATIONS

Design For Security – No objections. Recommend that the development is carried out in accordance with the recommendations in Section 4 of the submitted Crime Impact Statement.

UV Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Land Air Quality – No objections. The proposed development will not have a significant impact on air quality within the Air Quality Management Area. Notwithstanding this a condition is recommended to secure baseline mitigation measures in the form of electric vehicle charging points within the proposed car park. A condition to secure the submission of a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) has also been requested. Noise – No objections. Due to the distance, it is considered highly unlikely that noise from the general operation of the proposed foodstore will result in a negative impact at the residential properties. A compliance condition has been recommended stipulating the noise criteria that all external plant and equipment should operate to. Contaminated Land – No objections subject to the imposition of standard conditions designed to secure the submission of a remediation strategy and a verification report. A further condition regarding the use of piling or other penetrative measures during construction has also been recommended.

UV Drainage Engineer - No objections. Standard conditions recommended relating to compliance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment; provision of flood resilience measures; and delivery of a surface water drainage strategy for the site using sustainable drainage methods.

Highways – No objections, subject to the imposition of the following planning conditions:  Implementation of approved alterations to the A57(N) arm of the A57/WGIS/Stadium Way junction.  Provision of a Car Park Management Plan  Provision of a Service / Delivery / Waste Management Plan  Full details of cycle parking to be submitted and approved.  Site access to be implemented in accordance with the applicant’s submitted plan.  Provision and retention of visibility splays either side of the site access.  Submission of a Travel Information Pack.  Submission of a Full Travel Plan within six months of the store being brought into use.  Provision of a Construction Environment Management Plan See ‘Access, Highways and Parking’ section of this report for more detail.

Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) – No objections following further modelling being undertaken and the submission of a scheme of off-site highways works at the A57(N) arm of the A57/WGIS/Stadium Way junction. See ‘Access, Highways and Parking’ section of this report.

Environment Agency – No objections. The Environment Agency (EA) initially objected to the application on the grounds that the development would restrict essential maintenance and emergency access to the Salteye Brook watercourse for EA operatives. The applicant has successfully overcome this objection by providing an access point from the car park where a maintenance vehicle/machine can safely access the lower part of the bank.

Page 74 Greater Manchester Ecological Unit – No objections. No significant ecological constraints were identified by the developer’s ecological consultant. Issues relating to nesting birds, proximity to Salteye Brook and landscaping can be resolved via condition and/or informative.

Manchester Ship Canal Company - No comments received to date

United Utilities Water Ltd - No objections. Standard conditions recommended relating to the drainage of foul and surface water.

Trafford Council - No objections

REPRESENTATIONS

Objections from other food retailers

Asda Two objection letters have been submitted on behalf of Asda Stores ltd. The first raises objections on retail policy grounds whilst the second expresses concerns with the potential highways impacts of the development. The key points within each letter are summarised below, followed by an Officer response:

Key: O = objection; R = applicant response and officer comment

O The proposal represents a departure from the adopted UDP which is not outweighed by other material considerations. The proposed development seeks planning permission for a Class A1 retail development. Policy E1 of the UDP permits enabling development, which is limited to hotels, bars and restaurants. The proposed use therefore represents a departure from the UDP

R The application has been advertised as a departure from the local plan.

The applicant has also stated that at no point does the NPPF state that no weight should be given to the benefits of schemes which are not in accordance with the Development Plan. Therefore, Asda’s interpretation of Paragraph 47 of the NPPF is considered to be incorrect. The applicant believes that the proposed development will provide significant economic, social and environmental benefits to the local community, all of which are material considerations in the determination of this planning application and are in keeping with the aims of enabling development.

O The applicant has failed to provide an appropriate sequential assessment, as it has not considered the centres of Eccles, Cadishead and Urmston, which fall within a 10-minute off- peak drive time of the site. Failure to consider these centres makes it impossible for the local planning authority to come to a robust and sound decision on whether the application passes the sequential test.

R In response to the above, the applicant has stated that Aldi stores typically have a five-minute off-peak catchment area, however at the request of the Local Planning Authority, a 10-minute drive-time has been considered. Google Maps is not a reliable tool in determining drive-time distances for planning purposes. Asda have not measured from the proposed food-stores location to the Site, rather the other way around. Due to highways infrastructure this makes a significant difference to drive times. The off-peak drive-time catchment area provided by the Applicant uses the same data used in many satellite navigation systems.

Page 75 The applicant has undertaken some further assessment work that considers ‘within-centre’ and ‘edge-of-centre’ sites in Eccles and Cadishead. No potentially available sites were found as part of that exercise. Officer’s within the City Council’s Spatial Planning team have confirmed that it is not necessary for the applicant to consider corresponding sites within Urmston as it is considered to fall outside of the agreed catchment area (10 minute off-peak drive). As such officers are satisfied that the Sequential Test provided by the applicant is sufficiently robust.

O The application refers to the proposal being for a ‘deep discounter’ but in fact the application is for Class A1 retail which could in theory be occupied by any retailer. Aldi’s trading philosophy, whereby they differ from a traditional supermarket by selling from a limited core range of mainly exclusive own labels, should not be a material consideration in this instance.

R The applicant has responded by stating that the description of development is clear that planning permission is sought for a Class A1 foodstore and associated development. The application does not seek planning permission for a specific type of convenience goods retailer or solely for a specific retailer. The business model has not influenced the sequential assessment, the approach to which has been made in accordance with the principles of decisions at Rusden Lakes; Exeter; Mansfield; and Cribbs Causeway.

O The proposed site access should also be subject to a Road Safety Audit, in accordance with HD19/15

R A Road Safety Audit (RSA) is not required on roads of the classification referenced within HD19/15. Notwithstanding this, the Local Highway Authority has requested that the appropriate RSAs be undertaken prior to implementation and use of the access. A condition has been recommended which would secure the provision of these at the appropriate times.

O Further details on servicing should be provided, detailing how conflicts with customers will be managed when HGV’s are maneuvering within the car park. There is also the potential for conflict with stadium users as service vehicles need to use the entire width of the site access to enter the food-store car park and the entire width of Stadium Way to egress it.

R The LHA has requested that a condition be added to any permission to secure the submission of a Deliveries, Servicing and Waste Management Plan prior to the food-store being brought into first use. This document will, inter alia, give consideration to how the safety of staff and the public will be ensured whilst delivery vehicles are undertaking reversing manoeuvres. For example, it could enable serving to take place at quieter periods of the day, when there will be few cars/ customers in the car park and/ or on Stadium Way.

It is acknowledged that the swept path analysis shows delivery vehicles crossing the centre line of Stadium Way and the access road into the path of oncoming traffic. The alternative is to design the junction such that this is not necessary; however, this is contradictory to the advice contained within Manual for Street which advises tighter radii to minimise crossing distances for pedestrians and to slow vehicle movements into, and out of, junctions. The LHA consider the limited frequency of HGV’s, and the ability to control their arrival times, makes the applicant’s proposed approach more acceptable than disadvantaging pedestrians and facilitating faster vehicle turning movements on a permanent basis. Swept paths have demonstrated that vehicles would not need to overhang or encroach footways and the opportunity exists to check this again as part of the RSA process should the design change.

O The baseline data, upon which the Transport Assessment is based, should be collected again, in a neutral month, and the operational assessments revisited.

Page 76 R Following analysis of the applicant’s TA, TfGM were commissioned to undertake an assessment of the A57/ WGIS/ Stadium Way junction. Baseline data was collected again in late April (a neutral month) as part of a ‘2019 existing situation’ scenario and the operational assessments subsequently revisited.

O Committed developments, including the consented bulky goods retail unit on land adjacent to the A J Bell Stadium, should be considered.

R TfGM’s assessment accounted for committed development in the area, including the consented bulky goods retail unit on land adjacent to the A J Bell Stadium.

O Consideration of the impact of the development proposals during all highway network peaks, including when the Stadium is in use, should be undertaken.

R Guidance on the production of Transport Assessments and the design of highway improvement schemes has never advocated assessing the absolute worst case scenario. The most current guidance states that ‘In general, assessments should be based on normal traffic flow and usage conditions (e.g. non-school holiday periods, typical weather conditions) but it may be necessary to consider the implications for any regular peak traffic and usage periods (such as rush hours).’ Occasional events, like the rugby in this instance, generally include the implementation of specific traffic management measures and also influence the level of non-necessary traffic, such as foodstore trips, on the network. The LHA are confident that the correct periods have been assessed.

Lidl An objection to the proposed food-store has also been submitted on behalf of Lidl UK GmbH. The concerns raised within the letter are summarised below, followed by an Officer response:

Key: O = objection; R = applicant response and officer comment

O Lidl disagree with the applicant’s interpretation of UDP Policy ST9 and the decision not to assess the viability and vitality of defined centres within the catchment. The applicant should at least have undertaken an impact assessment that is proportionate to the scale of the retail use proposed to assess whether the proposal gives rise to a significant adverse impact on a defined retail centre. As such there is clearly insufficient evidence within the application submission to conclude that the proposed store would not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres. Town centres and high streets play an important socio-economical role which should be protected, and edge and out-of-centre retail proposals should meet relevant policy tests.

R This matter is addressed in more detail within the ‘Principle of Development’ section of this report, however the proposed food-store falls below the national threshold of 2,500sqm for an Impact Assessment. Officers within the City Council’s Spatial Planning team are satisfied that this would not be required to enable a robust decision to be issued on the application.

O Lidl have raised concerns in relation to how the sequential test has been carried out:  Firstly, the assessment does not include a full list of town and neighbourhood centres within the identified 10 minute off-peak drive time catchment for which alternative sites may be identified.  The site of the former Brown Cow PH, Worsley Road falls within the proposed store’s catchment area. The site is subject to a live planning application by Lidl for a foodstore with associated car parking and is therefore a ‘suitable’ and ‘available’ site. It is noted that

Page 77 the former Brown Cow Pub is also an out-of-centre site in retail planning policy terms. However, in any event, it is located closer to the nearest existing centres, such as Peel Green, Patricroft and Monton Neighbourhood Centres and Eccles Town Centre. Therefore it could be argued that the Brown Cow site is a more sustainable and a better connected site when compared with the proposed Aldi site.

R The applicant has undertaken some further assessment work that considers ‘within-centre’ and ‘edge-of-centre’ sites in Eccles and Cadishead. No potentially available sites were found as part of that exercise. A Lidl food-store is currently under construction on the site of the former Brown Cow PH, Worsley Road following the grant of planning permission and therefore it cannot be considered to be ‘available’.

O The proposal at its current state is contrary to Policy E1 of the adopted Development Plan. Lidl do not agree with the Applicant’s case that the principle for a foodstore at the site has been set by the site falling within the boundary of ‘retail’ phase (Stage 2) of development, as permitted by permission ref. 15/66762/NMA. This was a non-material amendment to a hybrid application that granted consent for a non-food bulk retail development that included a condition that specifically restricted the type of goods that could be sold within it.

R The food-store is assessed in detail against the City Council’s UDP Policy E1 within the ‘Principle of Development’ section of this report.

O There are a number of concerns with the Transport Assessment, namely:  No assessment has been undertaken of the combined impact of Aldi and stadium traffic on the Stadium Way junction onto the A57. A significant number of vehicular movements are to be expected during events and matches at the A J Bell Stadium, and are likely to decrease the capacity of the local highway network, and increase the risk of accidents and personal injury.  The base survey date used in all assessments has been undertaken out of school term time and is therefore unrepresentative;  The development trip rates have been based on one store alone. This is not representative and given the way in which the private car will dominate trip making at this location, a single store in Burnley where the walk-in catchment is much more significant than that of the application site is not the right model to use. The capacity assessments provided are therefore unreliable.  The poor accessibility of the site in terms of public transport, walking and cycling is likely to result in more people using private transport to access the site, and therefore increase the traffic flows in the vicinity of the site. Furthermore, the delays to pedestrians attempting to cross between the A57 and the application site will either deter pedestrian activity altogether or will lead to unacceptable risks being taken.  The narrow access into the site increases the possibility of accidents due to HGV movements encroaching onto footways at the site access and due to the tight turn at the access and within the site.

R  Guidance on the production of Transport Assessments and the design of highway improvement schemes has never advocated assessing the absolute worst case scenario. The most current guidance states that ‘In general, assessments should be based on normal traffic flow and usage conditions (eg non-school holiday periods, typical weather conditions) but it may be necessary to consider the implications for any regular peak traffic and usage periods (such as rush hours).’ Occasional events, like the rugby in this instance, generally include the implementation of specific traffic management measures and also influence the level of non-necessary traffic, such as foodstore trips, on the network. The LHA are confident that the correct periods have been assessed.

Page 78  Baseline data was collected again by TfGM in late April (a neutral month) as part of a ‘2019 existing situation’ scenario and the operational assessments subsequently revisited.  Whilst the use of a single store in order to derive trip rates would not normally be accepted, the rates have been compared to those derived from TRICS which were presented in the Technical Note submitted for pre-application advice. The rates adopted in the TA result in trip forecasts almost 5x higher in the AM Peak, 2.5x higher in the PM Peak and 1.6x higher in the Saturday Peak. The LHA therefore consider that the adoption of the trip rates derived from the Todmorden Road Aldi store in Burnley ensures a robust assessment of the potential impact on the highway network.  The LHA are satisfied that the forecasted traffic flows to the site have been modelled robustly. TfGM and the LHA consider the foodstore to be situated in a sustainable location however, in order to maximise the benefits of this, a s106 agreement will secure enhancements to pedestrian routes connecting the site with residential estates to the north of Liverpool Road and bus-stops will be located within a short walking distance of the store.  Swept paths have demonstrated that vehicles would not need to overhang or encroach footways and the opportunity exists to check this again as part of the RSA process should the design change.

Public Rights of Way Objections have been submitted on behalf of the ‘Manchester and Salford Ramblers’ and the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society. The concerns raised within the letters are again summarised below, followed by an Officer response

Key: O = objection; R = applicant response and officer comment

O Footpath E4, as originally established before the stadium was built, goes through the middle of the stadium development. It has never been officially diverted so technically it still exists. Converting this once rural path into a pavement alongside a dual carriageway changes its whole character and is unacceptable. Increasing the road traffic in this area by allowing this store to be built on an existing Public Right of Way (PRoW) will add further insult to the injury to the local path network which local people have endured over too many years.

DEFRA Circular 1/09 (Version 2), states that “in considering potential revisions to an existing right of way that are necessary to accommodate the planned development, but which are acceptable to the public, any alternative alignment should avoid the use of estate roads for the purpose wherever possible and preference should be given to the use of made up estate paths through landscaped or open space areas away from vehicular traffic." The representation concludes by stating that the onus must be on the developer to provide full justification of any deviation from the requirements of the Circular.

R Eccles Definitive Footpath No.3 runs along Stadium Way, in front of the application site, to join Footpath No.4. This Public Right of Way (PROW) was successfully diverted in 2013 as part of the stadium development. Therefore it does not technically still route through the middle of the application site. The character of this now established PROW is not a material consideration in the determination of this application. The proposed development will not diminish the width of Footpath No.3, create barriers across it or substantially alter its surface.

Other representations A representation has also been submitted that requests the provision of taxi ranks at the proposed development.

Page 79 PLANNING POLICY

Development Plan Policy

Unitary Development Plan E1 - Strategic Regional Site, Barton This policy states that one, or a combination of any two of the following types of development will be permitted on the Barton Strategic Regional Site: A) A mix of light and general industry, warehouse and distribution, and ancillary offices and other uses; B) A multi-modal freight interchange, incorporating rail and water based freight handling facilities, and a rail link to the Manchester-Newton-le Willow- Liverpool railway line C) A sports stadium for Salford City Reds with a maximum capacity of 20,000 spectators, and appropriate enabling development. Proposals must i) make an appropriate contribution towards road and services infrastructure ii) secure improvements to public transport iii) minimise adverse impact on visual amenity, views and vista in the area; iv) enhance the Liverpool Road corridor; v) maintain nature conservation interest of the site vi) have no unacceptable impact on local environmental quality vii) maintain the flood alleviation capabilities of Salteye Brook; viii) provide for a strategic route alongside the Manchester Ship Canal; ix) make appropriate provision for the training and employment of local residents during construction and operational phases.

Unitary Development Plan DES9 - Landscaping This policy states that hard and soft landscaping should be provided where appropriate that is of a high quality and would enhance the design of the development, not detract from the safety and security of the area and would enhance the attractiveness and character of the built environment.

Page 80 Unitary Development Plan A2 - Cyclists, Pedestrians and the Disabled This policy states that development proposals, road improvement schemes and traffic management measures will be required to make adequate provision for safe and convenient access by the disabled, other people with limited or impaired mobility, pedestrians and cyclists

Unitary Development Plan A5 - Buses This policy states that Quality Bus Corridors, bus lanes, guided busways and other bus priority measures will be permitted, where they are consistent with regeneration objectives. Bus priority measures will be introduced on the i) A6/A580 Leigh to Manchester ii) A56 Bury to Manchester iii) A6 through Swinton iv) A666 through Swinton v) A57/B5320 Cadishead to Eccles. The following routes will be investigated in conjunction with GMPTE; i) A575 through Walkden, and B5211 through Worsley, Winton and Patricroft ii) A5063 Trafford Road/Albion Way iii) A576 Pendleton to Cheetham iv) B5229 and B5231 Eccles to Swinton.

Improvements to the quality of bus services, facilities and associated highway infrastructure will be secured through i) new interchange facilities ii) improvements to existing provision iii) new forms of bus provision.

New developments are required make adequate provision for access to and the use of buses; development should i) facilitate safe, direct and convenient access to existing bus stops; ii) make good any deficiencies in bus services, facilities or associated highway infrastructure iii) in larger developments make specific provision for new bus stops and other associated infrastructure.

Unitary Development Plan EN9 – Wildlife Corridors This policy states that development that would affect any land that functions as a wildlife corridor, or that provides an important link or stepping stone between habitats, will not be permitted where it would unacceptably impair the movement of flora and fauna. Where development is permitted, conditions or planning obligations may be used to secure the protection, enhancement and/or management measures designed to facilitate the movement of flora and fauna across or around the site.

Unitary Development Plan EN14 – Derelict, Underused and Neglected Land

Page 81 This policy states that Development involving the reclamation, remediation or improvement of derelict, underused or neglected land should include measures to ensure that: i. physical risks to the public are reduced to acceptable levels; ii. site conditions appropriate to the proposed use of the land are created; iii. contamination of the land is addressed in accordance with the provisions of Policy EN 16 ‘Contaminated Land’; and iv. where appropriate, the existing ecological value of the site is protected or enhanced.

Unitary Development Plan EN16 – Contaminated Land This policy states that ddevelopment proposals on sites known or thought to be contaminated will require the submission of a site assessment as part of any planning application, identifying the nature and extent of the contamination involved, the risk it poses to future users/occupiers of the site, and the practical remedial measures proposed to deal with the contamination. Planning permission for development on or near to contaminated land will only be granted where the development would not: i. expose the occupiers of the development and neighbouring land uses to unacceptable risk; ii. threaten the structural integrity of any existing or proposed building on or adjoining the site; iii. lead to the contamination of any watercourse, water body, or aquifer; or iv. cause the contamination of adjoining land or allow such contamination to continue.

Other Material Planning Considerations

National Planning Policy

- National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)

Local Planning Policy

- Design Supplementary Planning Document - Design and Crime Supplementary Planning Document - Flood Risk and Development Planning Guidance - Contaminated Land Planning Guidance - Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document

It is not considered that there are any local finance considerations that are material to the application.

Page 82 The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework Draft 2019 (“GMSF”) and the Revised Draft Local Plan 2019 are subject to public consultation until 18th March and 22nd March 2019 respectively. Following that, they will go through a number of further stages, including examination at a public inquiry, before they are adopted. Adoption is expected to take place towards the end of 2020 or early 2021.

APPRAISAL

Principle of Development

The proposed development relates to the construction of an A1 food-store on a site that is not located within an existing town centre or neighbourhood centre, as identified within Policy S1 of the City Council’s Unitary Development Plan and its associated Proposals Map. The gross internal area of the store would be 1,862sqm, of which 1,315sqm would function as the sales area.

NPPF paragraph 89 states that when assessing applications for retail and leisure development outside town centres, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold. If there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500m2 of gross floorspace. There is no locally set threshold in the saved policies of the Council’s UDP. Whilst there is a locally set threshold within Policy TC2 of the City Council’s draft Local Plan, it would not be appropriate or justifiable to attach more than ‘very limited weight’ to this policy in the determination of the application, as the draft Plan remains to go through further rounds of consultation, followed by examination by an Inspector, before it becomes adopted. Therefore, as the proposed food-store falls below the national threshold of 2,500sqm, an Impact Assessment is not required to enable a robust assessment of the application.

Paragraph 86 of the published revised NPPF (July 2018) states that local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses which are neither in an existing centre nor in accordance with an up-to-date plan. Main town centre uses should be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations; and only if suitable sites are not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period) should out of centre sites be considered. Paragraph 87 then confirms when considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites which are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale, so that opportunities to utilise suitable town centre or edge of centre sites are fully explored. The NPPG does however confirm that the use of the sequential test should recognise that certain main town centre uses have particular market and locational requirements which mean that they may only be accommodated in specific locations.

The applicant has provided a Sequential Test within their Planning and Retail Statement to satisfy the requirements of Paragraph 86 of the NPPF. The Council’s Spatial Planning Team has confirmed that the catchment area reviewed by the applicant is reasonable. Following receipt of further assessment work, they are satisfied that there are no other within-centre or edge-of-centre sites that could potentially meet the needs and operational requirements of the applicant. As such, it is considered that the applicant has adequately demonstrated compliance with Chapter 7 of the NPPF.

Assessment against UDP Policy E1

Page 83 The application site is located on land covered by UDP Policy E1 - Strategic Regional Site, Barton. A summary of this Policy is provided within the ‘Development Plan Policy’ section of this report. The proposed food-store does not fall within one of the development types advocated in this location by sections a) – c), however the wording of the policy is not preclusive. The Policy also permits appropriate enabling development for the Salford City Reds stadium, which it goes on to identify as hotels, bars and restaurants. Any proposals for other forms of development will be considered departures from the plan.

Given the above, this proposal for an A1 food-store on the Barton Strategic Regional Site falls to be considered as a departure from the development plan and the application has been advertised as such.

The second part of the policy provides a nine-point checklist (i-ix) for new development within the Barton Strategic Regional Site, although it is considered that the criteria within it apply only as far as they are relevant to the development being proposed. The relevant criteria are as follows: 1. Make an appropriate and proportional contribution to the provision of road infrastructure and services; 2. Secure improvements to public transport to the Site; 3. Minimise any adverse impact on visual amenity; 4. Support the enhancement of the Liverpool Road corridor; 5. Maintain the overall nature conservation interest of the Site; 6. Have no unacceptable impact on local environmental quality; 7. Maintain the flood alleviation capabilities of Salteye Brook; and, 9. Make appropriate provision for the training and employment of local residents during the construction and/or operational phases of the development.

Matters relating to Points 1-8 are considered in more detail within the relevant sub-sections of this report, although for the benefit of this assessment it is concluded that the development has satisfied each individual criterion. In relation to point 9., the applicant has agreed to sign up to the Council’s Local Labour Agreement. Overall, officers are satisfied that the proposed development adequately complies with each of the criteria listed above.

The applicant has adequately demonstrated that there are no sequentially preferable within-centre, or edge-of-centre, sites that could potentially meet Aldi’s needs and operational requirements. The development is also considered to accord with the criteria listed within the second part of UDP Policy E1, although it is not compatible with the range of land-uses advocated in the first part of UDP Policy E1 and as such falls to be considered as a departure from the Local Plan.

Under Paragraph 47 of the NPPF, Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The ‘Weighted Planning Balance’ section at the end of this report identifies that there are material considerations relevant to this development that would reasonably justify a departure from the first part of UDP Policy E1. For ease of reference, these are set out below:  A positive contribution to the environment and appearance of the Liverpool Road corridor.  Continued regeneration of the Salford Western Gateway after a period of inactivity.  Creation of 30-50 new retail jobs and additional, temporary construction jobs.  Off-site highways works to provide increased queuing capacity on the northern approach to the Salford Western Gateway / Liverpool Road junction.  Alterations to bus-stops to enhance the accessibility of bus services for users of the development, the Barley Farm PH and the Rugby Stadium.  Improvements to Public Right of Way No.28, which will benefit Aldi customers walking to the foodstore from residential estates north of Liverpool Road, and enhance the experience for those people using the PROW for leisure purposes.

Page 84  Net gains in biodiversity through the introduction of a wildflower grass-land to the western side of the site and bird and bat boxes.

Residential Amenity

The closest residential properties to the site are those located on Avroe Road and Trident Road, 270m to the north-west. At this distance, any visual impact resulting from the proposed building would be extremely limited. The potential impacts arising from servicing, external plant, and comings and goings are considered as part of the ‘Noise’ Chapter, below. The development is, however, considered to have an acceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and is therefore in compliance with Policy DES7 of the City of Salford UDP.

Noise

A Noise Assessment has been submitted with the application. The proposed food-store is located 270m away from the nearest residential receptors. As a result of this distance, and the proximity of the main highway network, the City Council’s Environmental consultant considers it highly unlikely that noise from the general operation of the proposed food-store (such as deliveries and customers arriving / departing) will have a negative impact on residential receptors.

The Environmental officer considers there to be limited potential for plant / equipment at the store to be audible from residential receptors when operating at night. As such the applicant has used the Noise Assessment to determine suitable design criteria for any fixed plant and equipment. This approach is accepted and a condition should be attached to any permission to set out the noise levels that should not be exceeded.

Overall there are no objections to the development on noise grounds, subject to compliance with the condition described above, and therefore the development is considered to be in compliance with Policy ENV 17 of the City of Salford UDP.

Air Quality

The development is not within an air quality management area; however the proposed foodstore is of a scale which is likely to impact upon traffic patterns in the area. Consideration should also be given to the potential impact of additional vehicle movements generated by the development on the area’s air quality.

The application is supported by an Air Quality Impact Assessment. The model inputs underpinning this assessment have been reviewed by the City Council’s Environmental consultant and are considered to be representative of the conditions in the area.

The model predicts a slight, but not significant, impact from the development at residential receptors adjacent to Liverpool Road. At two of these, annual mean NO² concentrations are predicted to be above the UK limit value; although it should be noted that the model shows concentrations are above the limit both with, and without, the development, due to the receptors’ proximity to the A57 and M60 J11 roundabout. The City Council’s consultant Environmental Officer has accepted the conclusions of the Impact Assessment and recommended mitigation measures in line with the Greater Manchester Air Quality Action Plan and the Principles of Good Practice from the EPUK / IAQM Guidance (Land- Use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality).

The applicant has committed to the provision of a single rapid electric vehicle (EV) charging unit within the customer car park, which is considered to represent an acceptable form of mitigation. As such there are no objections on the grounds of air quality subject to the imposition of a condition to secure the installation of the EV charging unit(s). The construction phase of the development can be

Page 85 controlled through a condition that requires the submission of a Construction Environment Management Plan. The development has been shown to have no unacceptable impact on local environmental quality, specifically in relation to air quality, and is therefore considered to be in compliance with Policy ENV 17 and E1(6) of the City of Salford UDP.

Layout, Scale, Massing and Design

The proposed foodstore has been set back from Stadium Way by 42m, behind an area of surface- level car parking. It is understood that the large set-back from the highway is driven by the need to arrange the development efficiently.

It is appreciated that the scale, massing and design of the foodstore is largely derived from its function. Its appearance is typical for an out-of-centre foodstore and would not appear out of context in the area, given the form and massing of completed and committed development in the area. In particular, the proposed building would be seen against the backdrop of the A J Bell Stadium’s main / west stand, which is appreciably larger in scale. The form and profile of this stand would be mirrored by the slanted monopitch roof of the new food-store. Glazing spans the elevation facing Stadium Way, which would provide an active frontage. This returns onto the store’s western side elevation for a distance of 20m, before continuing at a high-level only. Metallic silver and anthracite grey cladding would be used to further break up the elevations.

Overall the scale, massing, and general design approach employed for the proposed foodstore would support the enhancement of the Liverpool Road corridor and would not have an adverse impact on visual amenity. It is therefore considered to be in compliance with Policies DES1, E1(3&4) and EN23 of the City of Salford UDP and the NPPF.

Trees and Landscaping

The Arboricultural Report that has been submitted with the application identifies that one category C tree would need to be removed to facilitate the development. All other trees on site would be retained. It is accepted that a category C tree should not constrain a development and therefore there are no objections to its removal. The submitted landscaping plan indicates that 12 new trees would be planted as part of the development, which comfortably mitigates for the loss of a single tree.

A Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement should be submitted as part of the requirements of suitably worded planning conditions, to safeguard those trees to be retained on the site whilst construction work is taking place.

A detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted with the application, which shows an eco species-rich area of grassland wrapping around the western and northern sides of the main car park, adjacent to Salteye Brook. The 12 new trees to be planted would be positioned around the site perimeters, including three that would sit within a bed of ornamental shrub planting along the Stadium Way frontage.

A proposed Boundary Treatment Plan has been submitted with the application, which indicates that a timber knee-rail and soft landscaping would define the Stadium Way frontage to the site. A low Armco barrier would separate the western boundary of the car park from the banks of the Salteye Brook. Overall the proposed arrangement of boundary treatments is considered to be satisfactory.

The proposed landscaping scheme has been reviewed by the City Council’s consultant landscape team and is considered to be acceptable. A condition to secure the implementation and a plan for the future maintenance of the approved landscape scheme would be attached to any grant of planning permission. This aspect of the development would support the enhancement of the Liverpool Road

Page 86 corridor and is considered to be in compliance with Policies DES1, DES9 and E1(4) of the City of Salford UDP and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Ecology

The applicant’s submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been reviewed by Greater Manchester’s Ecology Unit (GMEU). The document reports that no evidence of any protected species was found on the site however, the adjacent Salteye Brook may be a commuting corridor for bats. As such GMEU have recommended a condition requiring the submission of details of any external lighting, so as to avoid negative impacts upon the Brook.

The development will result in the loss of scrub and some young trees, which could provide potential bird nesting habitats. GMEU have recommended a condition that would prevent this vegetation from being removed during bird nesting season unless a bird nest survey has been submitted to, and agreed by, the Local Planning Authority. However, as nesting birds are already protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) it is not considered to be necessary for the planning system to duplicate the controls already in place under a separate regime. In this instance an Informative would be added to any grant of permission that draws the applicant’s attention to the need to protect nesting birds.

No invasive species have been recorded on the application site, although Himalayan balsam was found off-site, along Salteye Brook. Consequently GMEU have recommended an informative to draw the applicant’s attention to the applicant’s obligations with regards to invasive species, as set out within the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981.

GMEU have identified a risk of pollution to Salteye Brook during the construction and operational phases. Whilst the risks are considered to be relatively low, pollution of the Brook would have negative impacts on the ecological potential of the watercourse, contrary to the aims and objectives of the Water Framework Directive. To prevent this, GMEU have recommended that the fllowing conditions be attached to any grant of planning permisison:  Submission of a method statement to protect the Salteye Brook from accidental spillages, dust and debris; and  Details to be submitted that demonstrate there will be no negative impacts on the ecological potential of the Salteye Brook resulting from the disposal of foul water and surface water It is considered that the first of these could be incorporated into the requirements of the Council’s standard Construction Environment Management Plan condition.

The proposed landscaping scheme has been amended during the course of the application to include areas of wildflower grassland around the site perimeters; 3no. bat boxes and 3no. bird boxes. An ‘insect hotel’ in the form of split logs, dead wood and rocks would also be provided. A compliance condition would be added to any grant of permission to secure the ecological features shown on the landscaping plan.

GMEU have raised no objections to the proposed development. The above has demonstrated that the food-store will maintain the overall nature conservation interest of the site and that it would not have an unacceptable impact on local environmental quality. The proposals are therefore considered to be in compliance with Policy E1(5&6) and Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Access, Highways and Parking

Highway Impact Assessment

After several submissions of assessment work from the applicant, Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) were commissioned to undertake an independent review of the A57 / ‘WGIS’ / Stadium Way

Page 87 junction to determine the likely impact the development would have on its operation and also if mitigation works would be necessary.

The resulting report concluded that it would be necessary for the applicant to provide capacity improvements to the A57(N) arm of the aforementioned junction to compensate for the impact that development traffic would have on its operation during the weekday commuter peaks. Following an iterative process, the applicant has subsequently produced a scheme that provides increased queuing capacity on the northern approach to the Salford Western Gateway / Liverpool Road junction. This is achieved by re-marking the carriageway within the confines of the existing kerb-lines to provide two full lanes for the right-turn from the A57(N) onto the A57 (W). The works would not require any reduction in footways or use of third-party land.

The design of the improvement works has been supported by a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA). Subject to two minor alterations that can be incorporated at the detailed design stage, the Local Highway Authority (LHA) are satisfied with the proposed layout. With the mitigation works in place the food-store does not quite achieve ‘nil detriment’ during the weekday commuter peak hours, but it does improve how the junction operates at all times. In this respect, the development is making an appropriate and proportional contribution to the provision of road infrastructure, in accordance with UDP Policy E1(1). Furthermore, the LHA are satisfied that the impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion) would be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree, in accordance with Paragraph 108 of the NPPF. A condition would be added to any grant of permission to ensure that the agreed highways works are implemented prior to the food- store being first brought into use.

Access, Site Layout and Parking

The LHA are satisfied with the position of the proposed site access off Stadium Way, subject to the imposition of conditions that secure its detailed design and appropriate visibility splays for a 30mph highway.

The swept-path analysis, submitted by the applicant’s transport consultant, demonstrates that the proposed car park layout can accommodate the maximum legal articulated HGV turning manoeuvre. A Servicing Management Plan should be submitted though, which gives consideration to inter alia how the safety of staff and the public will be ensured whilst delivery vehicles are undertaking reversing manoeuvres.

The car park associated with the proposed food-store would provide parking spaces for 114 cars, of which seven are allocated for disabled motorists and nine have been identified as parent and child spaces. Two parking spaces would accommodate electric vehicle charging points; these represent mitigation measures as advised by the Greater Manchester Air Quality Action Plan. The overall level of parking provision is broadly in-line with the City Council’s parking standards and is considered to be appropriate for a store of this size and location. A Car Park Management Plan should be secured via planning condition to set out how the use of the car park would be controlled on match days.

The applicant is of the view that a taxi rank is not necessary for the development due to the amount of car parking spaces, public transport links and easy pedestrian and vehicle access into the site.

The applicant has agreed to make a financial contribution of £50,000 towards improving pedestrian routes between the store and residential properties to the north of Liverpoool Road.

Sustainable Travel

Customer cycle parking would be located along the store frontage, beneath the building’s canopy feature, and comprises of five Sheffield stands that can accommodate 10 cycles. Designated staff

Page 88 provision for six cycles has been shown in the vicinity of the servicing area. This would benefit from being afforded greater security (through the addition of a lockable shelter or CCTV) and therefore further details should be submitted for review as part of a suitably worded planning condition.

The existing bus-stops on Liverpool Road are located 420m and 500m from the site, which exceeds the maximum walking distance recommended by the Institution of Highways and Transportation for journeys on foot. At these distances, future customers of the food-store may be reluctant to use public transport, particularly if they have multiple bags of shopping. Policy A5 (Buses) of the City Council’s UDP states that development proposals will be required to make adequate provision for access to and the use of buses. In particular development should make good any deficiencies in bus services, facilities or associated highway infrastructure required to service the development… and in the case of larger developments, make specific provision for new bus-stops and other associated infrastructure as an integral part of the development and, where appropriate, make financial contributions towards new or improved bus services. Both the LHA and TfGM are in agreement that the applicant should fund the provision of additional bus stops closer to the application site. The cost of these works has been estimated at £12,000 and would be secured by way of a s106 legal agreement. These improvements to public transport are considered to be proportionate and sufficient to address the requirements of UDP Policies A5 and E1(2).

The applicant has committed to issuing all new employees with a ‘Travel Pack’, which will detail all modes of sustainable travel available to the site, including cycleways, footways and public transport. A Full Travel Plan would also be submitted within six months of the store opening with the principle aim of reducing unnecessary or unsustainable car travel made by employees. The content of these documents will be agreed as part of the requirements of two planning conditions.

Public Right of Way

Eccles Definitive Footpath No.3 runs along Stadium Way, in front of the application site, to join Footpath No.4. This Public Right of Way (PROW) was successfully diverted in 2013 as part of the stadium development. Contrary to the representations made by the Manchester and Salford Ramblers, and the Peak and Northern Footpath Society, it does not technically still route through the middle of the application site.

The application site does interface with Footpath No.3, as the diverted route follows the Stadium Way footway; however the developer is aware of their obligations with regards to not interfering with the PROW and has confirmed that no changes are proposed to the route. The submitted site plan supports this statement. On this basis, officers have no concerns in relation to potential impact upon the nearby PROW’s.

Subject to compliance with the conditions recommended within this section of the report, there are no objections to the development on traffic impact or road safety grounds and the application is considered to be in compliance with the relevant policies set out in the City Council’s UDP and the NPPF.

Flood Risk and Drainage

Flood Risk The application site is situated within Flood Zone 2, whilst the provision of a food-store is classed as a ‘Less Vulnerable’ use in flood-risk terms. The NPPG confirms that this use is appropriate within this particular flood zone.

The applicant has amended the site layout to incorporate an ‘essential maintenance and emergency access’ route down to the banks of the Salteye Brook. This is for the benefit of Environment Agency

Page 89 (EA) machinery. The revision subsequently enabled the EA to withdraw their initial objection to the scheme.

Drainage The development has been proposed on brownfield land, on a plot that is located within the Core Conurbation Critical Drainage Area. As such the site must be drained using the most sustainable method possible and should achieve a 50% reduction in the existing rate of surface water runoff (or to greenfield runoff, whichever is greater).

The applicant has provided a Drainage Strategy with accompanying plans and calculations, which states that infiltration via soakaways or permeable paving has been discounted due to the potential for rainwater infiltration to mobilise contaminants and further contaminate either Salteye Brook and/or the deep ground water. Space limitations on site discount the use of features such as swales, detention basins and ponds etc.

The applicant proposes to discharge the surface water drainage directly into Salteye Brook at flows limited to greenfield runoff rates. The drainage hierarchy within the NPPG indicates that discharging to a surface water body represents the second-most sustainable means of discharging surface water. Any contaminants will be removed prior to discharge into the brook. The car park areas are to be drained using a lined permeable pavement solution. Attenuation volumes are provided with a tank for the roof and within the stone fill in the car park.

Discharging into the brook will require an Environmental Permit from the EA, however appropriate measures should be sought as part of the planning process to prevent runoff from the car park polluting the watercourse. These measures should be submitted as part of the requirements of a planning condition.

Overall, the City Council’s consultant Drainage Engineer is satisfied that surface water can be drained from the site in a sustainable manner that will maintain the flood alleviation capabilities of Salteye Brook. They have recommended that conditions relating to the provision of a detailed drainage strategy and appropriate pollution prevention measures be attached to any grant of planning permission. The development is therefore considered to be compliant with Policy EN19 of the City Council’s UDP and with relevant national policies contained within the NPPF also.

Land Contamination

The application site was once part of a meander of the nearby Salteye Brook, which has subsequently been in-filled. It now contains a significant depth of made ground, potentially related to a nearby sewage farm, and a spoil heap. The proposed commercial foodstore is classed as a sensitive end-use in land contamination risk terms.

A Geo-Environmental Assessment and Groundwater Assessment have been submitted with the application. The former of these identified various contaminants within the made ground, albeit below the relevant screening values for a commercial end use. Hydrocarbon levels above the screening value have been reported in one location at a depth of 4.1m. The majority of the site will be covered with the building footprint or hardstanding, which will break the pathway between the soils and the end users. The submitted remediation strategy proposes 450mm of clean soil capping in areas of proposed soft landscaping.

In terms of groundwater, the submitted assessment concludes that, whilst there is identified contamination within the perched groundwater, deep groundwater, and surface water, there appears to be no interaction between the three bodies of groundwater. The contamination of the deep groundwater and surface water appears to be unrelated to this site.

Page 90 The conclusions of the report have been accepted by both the Environment Agency (EA) and the City Council’s Environmental Consultant, who are in agreement that the matter can be adequately resolved through the imposition of a condition that requires the submission of a detailed remediation scheme. Subject to compliance with the recommended condition, this aspect of the development has been shown to have no unacceptable impact on local environmental quality in relation to land contamination and is therefore considered to be in compliance with Policy ENV 17 and E1(6) of the City of Salford UDP.

Crime Prevention

The applicant has sought to reduce opportunities for crime through the layout and design of the foodstore, boundary treatments and landscaping. A Crime Impact Statement (CIS) has also been submitted with the application. This identifies that the following features of the development would make a positive contribution to the prevention of crime and fear of crime:  Main entrances for public use are clearly evident on approaching the buildings from the surrounding parking areas;  Cycle parking is positioned where it can be overlooked by staff and shoppers within the store;  The car park has been laid out to provide effective surveillance.  A fence-line has been installed alongside the public footpath so that pedestrians are routed away from parked vehicles.

The CIS recommends that the service yard and walkway to the east of the store be kept enclosed to prevent unathorised access. The site is located in an area that currently experiences relatively low levels of criminal activity and overall it is considered that the development is in compliance with Policy DES10 of the City of Salford UDP and there are no objections to the development on the grounds of security or crime prevention.

Sustainability

The submitted Design and Access Statement (DAS) reports that Aldi are committed to achieving sustainable development as part of its operations. The objectives for achieving sustainable development as part of their operations ranges both between the day-to-day running of their retail stores, to designing sustainability initiatives within their new buildings.

The DAS goes on to state that ALDI uses a mix of conventional and renewable energy to power its stores. A heat recovery system using a refrigerant-to-air-heat-exchanger is used to heat the sales area of each store. This provides a significant reduction in the store’s carbon footprint when compared to conventional gas heating methods.

The applicant has also identified the following measures that they consider will minimise the environmental impact of its stores and/or contribute towards sustainability objectives:-  Improve building fabric performance by using materials with low U-values  Light fittings will be of low energy type and switched on by presence detectors.  Electrical energy and heating is conserved by the widespread use of time switches.  Water saving devices and a pulsed water meter would be installed to monitor water use;  Provision of cycle parking facilities for staff and customers;  SUDS are to be incorporated into the hard-surfacing areas;  Hydrocarbon traps to be placed around the perimeter of the car park area where necessary.

On the basis of the above, it is considered that the development will meet the City Council's aspirations in terms of sustainability and the requirements of its SPD: Sustainable Design and Construction.

Page 91 Planning Obligations

The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 204) states that planning obligations should only be sought where they are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

UDP Policy DEV5 and the Planning Obligations SPD (2015) explain the City Council’s overall approach to the use of planning obligations, and sets out detailed advice on the use of obligations to ensure that developments mitigate their impacts by making an appropriate contribution to projects that will ensure the needs generated by the development are met. The SPD notes that for developments comprising of 1,000sqm or more of non-residential floor-space, any contributions towards transport and public realm will be negotiated having regard to site specific circumstances.

This application proposes the development of a 1,862sqm food-store (Use Class A1), which is likely to generate a significant increase in footfall between the site and the surrounding residential areas. An assessment of this impact has revealed a need to improve pedestrian routes close to the development site, to create a safe, attractive and traffic-free route from local residential areas.

The development would also result in an increased demand for bus trips between the site and surrounding residential areas. The closest bus stops, in each direction, are located 420m and 500m from the site, which exceeds the relevant guidelines produced by the Institution of Highways and Transportation for journeys on foot. As such a need for additional bus stops along the A57, closer to the food-store site, has been identified

Consequently the applicant and the City Council have agreed a contribution of £62,000. This contribution would be secured via Section 106 agreement and would be directed towards improvement works to pedestrian routes and bus-stop facilities within the vicinity of the application site.

WEIGHTED PLANNING BALANCE UNDER NPPF PARAGRAPH 47

The application has been advertised as a departure from the local plan, as the proposals do not include one of the development types advocated in this location by sections a) – c) of UDP Policy E1. Under Paragraph 47 of the NPPF, Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The adverse impacts that could arise from the development are considered to be limited to the following:  A slight, adverse impact on air quality at three receptors along Liverpool Road; and  Slight increase in junction delays at the WGIS / Liverpool Road junction during peak hours.

Accounting for the above, it is considered that in this instance there are material considerations relevant to this development, in the form of social, economic and environmental benefits, that reasonably justify a departure from the first part of UDP Policy E1 and outweigh the slight adverse impacts arising from elements of the food-store. These include:  A positive contribution to the environment and appearance of the Liverpool Road corridor.  Continued regeneration of the Salford Western Gateway after a period of inactivity.  Creation of 30-50 new retail jobs and additional, temporary construction jobs.  Off-site highways works that improve the manner in which the northern approach of the WGIS / Liverpool Road junction operates.  Alterations to bus-stops to enhance the accessibility of bus services for users of the development, the Barley Farm PH and the Rugby Stadium.

Page 92  Improvements to pedestrian routes between the store and residential properties to the north of Liverpool Road, and enhance the experience for those people using these pedestrian routes for leisure purposes.  Net gains in biodiversity through the introduction of a wildflower grass-land to westerns side of the site and bird and bat boxes.

In addition to the above, regard is given to Policy 80 of the NPPF, which states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development.

Officers have considered all of the material considerations applicable to this development and are satisfied that, when assessed in the round, it constitutes a sustainable form of development that accords with the relevant planning policies.

RECOMMENDATION

Planning permission be granted subject to the following planning conditions and that:

1) The City Solicitor be authorised to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the following heads of terms:

(i) a financial contribution of £62,000 to deliver: o Improvements to pedestrian routes between local residential areas and the proposed food-store; and o the introduction of bus-stops within a 400m walk of the application site.

2) That the applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such a legal agreement;

3) The authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application be issued (subject to the conditions and reasons stated below) on completion of the above-mentioned legal agreement

Conditions

1. The development must be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan – 1513BOL-100 Rev: A Proposed Site Plan – 1513BOL-102 Rev: H Proposed Elevations – 1513BOL-103 Rev: C Proposed Elevations – 153BOL-V103C Proposed GA Plan – 1513BOL-104 Rev: C Proposed Boundary Treatment Details – 1513BOL-105 Rev: D Proposed Roof Plan – 1513BOL-106 Rev: A Roller Shutter Detail – 1513BOL-107 Rev: A Car Charging Point Details - 1513BOL-108 Rev: C Landscape Plan – V1513L01 Rev: E

Page 93 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. No development shall take place, including any works of excavation or demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall include:

(i) the times of construction activities on site which, unless agreed otherwise as part of the approved Statement, shall be limited to between 8am-6pm Monday to Friday and 9am-2pm Saturday only (no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays). Quieter activities which are carried out inside buildings such as electrical works, plumbing and plastering may take place outside of agreed working times so long as they do not result in significant disturbance to neighbouring occupiers; (ii) the spaces for and management of the parking of site operatives and visitors vehicles; (iii) the storage and management of plant and materials (including loading and unloading activities); (iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoardings including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; (v) measures to prevent the deposition of dirt on the public highway; (vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition/construction; (vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition/construction works; (viii) measures to minimise disturbance to any neighbouring occupiers from noise and vibration, including from any piling activity; (ix) measures to protect the Salteye Brook from accidental spillages, dust and debris; (x) a community engagement strategy which explains how local neighbours will be kept updated on the construction process, key milestones, and how they can report to the site manager or other appropriate representative of the developer, instances of unneighbourly behaviour from construction operatives. The statement shall also detail the steps that will be taken when unneighbourly behaviour has been reported. A log of all reported instances shall be kept on record and made available for inspection by the local a planning authority upon request; and (xi) an intended date for the commencement of development and, following commencement, evidence of the material start on site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbours in accordance with policies DES7 and EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. As a Construction Method Statement is required to inform the practices followed during the lifetime of the build it is necessary to require this information prior to the commencement of development.

4. No development shall be started until all the retained trees within (or overhanging) the site as shown at [Tree Impact Plan, Drawing No: BTC1678-TIP], have been surrounded by substantial fences which shall extend to the extreme circumference of the spread of the branches of the trees (or such positions as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority). Such fences shall be erected in accordance with a specification to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall remain until all development is completed and no work, including any form of drainage or storage of materials, earth or topsoil shall take place within the perimeter of such fencing.

Reason: To safeguard important trees on the site and to ensure that adequate provision is made for their protection whilst the development is carried out, having regard to Policy EN12 of the City

Page 94 of Salford Unitary Development Plan, the Salford City Council Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reason for pre-commencement condition: Any work on the site has the potential to damage those trees to be retained and so the programme of protection measures is required before any development commences.

5. Prior to development commencing (except for demolition and enabling works) the applicant shall submit and agree with the Local Planning Authority in writing a contaminated land remediation strategy including detailed information pertaining to the management / remediation of contamination with the potential to impact controlled waters. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the duly approved remediation strategy or such varied remediation strategy as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

6. Pursuant to condition 5; and prior to first use of the site as a food-store, a verification report, which validates that all remedial works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those agreed with the Local Planning Authority, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

7. No development shall take place until a scheme for surface water drainage for the site using sustainable drainage methods and which includes details of how water quality will be improved, and how existing surface water discharge rates reduced, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall also demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts on the ecological potential of the Salteye Brook, resulting from the disposal of foul or surface water. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation or use of the development hereby approved unless alternative timescales have been agreed in writing as part of the strategy.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory method of surface water disposal to reduce the risk of flooding elsewhere in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and seeks to provide betterment in terms of water quality and surface water discharge rates and meets requirements set out in the following documents; o NPPF, o Water Framework Directive and the NW River Basin Management Plan o The national Planning Practice Guidance and the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) o Manchester, Salford, Trafford Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) (2011) and associated technical guidance o Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines (now withdrawn) o Flood Risk Assessment/SuDS Requirements for new developments (Salford's SuDS Checklist)

Reason for pre-commencement condition: The solution for surface water disposal must be understood prior to works commencing on site as it could affect how underground works are planned and carried out.

Page 95 8. Prior to the commencement of development (except for demolition and enabling works), a scheme for draining the car parking areas within that phase through a bypass oil separator, or equivalent SUDS system, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the food-store being first brought into use and shall be retained until the cessation of this use.

Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters from the development site, having regard to Policy EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

9. Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application no above ground construction works shall take place until samples or full details of materials to be used externally on the building(s) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include the type, colour and texture of the materials. Only the materials so approved shall be used, in accordance with any terms of such approval.

10. No above-ground works shall commence until details of flood resilient construction (up to the flood level predicted for the 1:1,000 year flood event) have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In order to reduce the risks from flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

11. The landscaping and ecological enhancement works shown on the approved Landscape Plan (Drwng No. V1513L01 Rev: E) shall be carried out in accordance with any timing / phasing arrangements agreed or within 18 months of first occupation of the development hereby permitted, whichever is the later. Any trees or shrubs planted or retained in accordance with this condition which are removed, uprooted, destroyed, die or become severely damaged or become seriously diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its consent in writing to any variation.

12. Prior to the food-store hereby approved being first brought into use, two fast electric vehicle charge points shall be installed within the customer car park and made operational, in accordance with the details shown on drawings 1513BOL-102 Rev: H (Proposed Site Plan) and 1513BOL-108 Rev: C (Car Charging Point Details) and shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To encourage the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles and ensure that the development is sustainable, in accordance with Policy EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

13. The site access arrangements, as shown on ‘Proposed Aldi Foodstore Site Access Arrangement Preliminary Design – Dwg No. 335-01/GA-01 Rev A,’ (or an alternative plan approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) shall be implemented in full prior to the food-store being first brought into use and retained thereafter. A stage 1 / 2 Road Safety Audit (RSA) should be submitted to,

Page 96 and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to the construction of the site access and a Stage 3 RSA should be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to its first use by customers and / or staff.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and the free flow of traffic and in accordance with policies A2 and A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

14. Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, the development hereby approved shall not be brought into first occupation until details of short-stay customer cycle parking and long-stay staff parking have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved cycle parking shall be implemented and made available for its intended use prior to first use of the food-store and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To encourage more sustainable modes of travel in accordance with policies ST14, A2 and A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework

15. Prior to the food-store hereby approved being first brought into use a Travel Information Pack (TIP) along with details of the Travel Plan Coordinator, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The TIP shall detail all modes of sustainable transport available to the site, including cycleways, footways, public transport and any other local options. The approved pack shall be issued to all staff on appointment to work at the development hereby permitted.

16. Within six months of food-store hereby approved being brought into first use (or an alternative time-frame that has been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority), a Full Travel Plan (FTP) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The FTP should include results of travel surveys, targets for modal shift, an action plan and real incentives and measures to encourage use of non-car modes of travel. The agreed Travel Plan shall be implemented and reviewed in accordance with the timetable embodied therein.

17. Prior to the food-store hereby approved being first brought into use a Car Park Management Plan (CPMP) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The document should set out how use of the car park will be controlled, particularly on stadium event / match days. Thereafter the development shall proceed in accordance with the details contained within the approved CPMP.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety, the free flow of traffic and residential amenity and in accordance with policies A2, A8 and A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

18. The food-store hereby approved shall not be brought into first use until a Deliveries, Servicing and Waste Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall proceed in accordance with the details within the approved Plan.

Page 97 Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and highway safety, having regard to Policies A2 and A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

19. Any externally-mounted plant and equipment (with the exception of plant required for emergency situations such as standby generators, smoke extract equipment etc.) associated with the development hereby approved shall be designed so as not to exceed the following BS4142:2014 noise rating levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptor; o 07:00 – 23:00 - 48 dB(A) o 23:00 – 07:00 – 42 dB(A) Assessed in accordance with BS 4142: 2014 with corrections applied for any plant emitting noise of a tonal or irregular quality.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of neighbouring occupants of the development hereby approved in accordance with policies S4 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

20. The vehicle parking, servicing and other vehicular access arrangements shown on the approved plans to serve the development hereby permitted shall be made available for use prior to the development being brought into use (or in accordance with a phasing plan which shall first be agreed in writing with the local planning authority) and shall be retained thereafter for their intended purpose.

21. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations provided in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (Earth Environmental & Geotechnical: ref: 275 Rev: B, dated August 2017) and retained thereafter.

Reason: In order to reduce the risks from flooding in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

22. Notwithstanding the provisions of Condition 7, the rate of discharge of surface water from the development shall be restricted to 50% of the existing discharge rate (or to green-field runoff, whichever is greater), as per Salford City Council's SFRA, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site, in accordance with policy EN19 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

23. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into first use until a Landscape Management Plan for the site has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The Management Plan shall include long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscaped areas, along with a timetable for the implementation of the works detailed within it.

Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped and maintained and to ensure the protection of wildlife and supporting habitat and to secure opportunities for the enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site, having regard to its location and the nature of the proposed development and in accordance with Policies DES1 and DES9 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 98 24. The food-store hereby approved shall not be brought into use until an external lighting plan, showing how and where lighting will be installed, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The lighting plan shall include lighting contour lines and shall identify the frequency and duration of use of the lighting to demonstrate the impact that it will have on the ecological potential of Salteye Brook. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved lighting plan.

Reason: To prevent against negative impacts on the ecological potential of the adjacent watercourse, having regard to Policy of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

25. Prior to the development hereby approved being first brought into use, a scheme of appropriate pollution prevention measures to be applied, when disposing of foul and surface water from the site, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first use of the site as a food-store.

To prevent against negative impacts on the ecological potential of the adjacent watercourse, having regard to Policy of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

26. If piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods are proposed, details demonstrating that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Thereafter development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a safe form of development which poses no unacceptable risk of pollution, having regard to Policy EN 17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

27. Visibility splays of 24m x 43m shall be provided in both directions either side of the proposed site access in accordance with drawing ‘Proposed Aldi Foodstore Site Access Arrangement Preliminary Design – Dwg No. 335-01/GA-01 Rev A.’ Nothing should be subsequently erected, or allowed to, a height in excess of 0.6m within the visibility splay. The unobstructed visibility splays should be provided prior to first use of the development hereby permitted and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety in accordance with policies A2 and A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

28. Prior to the development hereby approved being brought into first use, the proposed alterations to the A57 (N) arm of the A57/ WGIS/ Stadium Way junction, as shown on drawing M14070-A-035 Rev C, dated 07.06.2019 (or similar to be agreed in writing with the Local Highway Authority) shall be implemented in full and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and the free flow of traffic, in accordance with policies A2 and A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informatives

1. It is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, as amended to introduce, plant or cause to grow wild any plant listed in Schedule 9 part 2 of the Act. Species such as Japanese

Page 99 knotweed and Himalayan balsam are included within this schedule. If any such species will be disturbed as a result of this development a suitably experienced consultant should be employed to advise on how to avoid an offence.

2. No vegetation clearance required by the scheme should take place in the optimum period for bird nesting (March to August inclusive) unless nesting birds have been shown to be absent by a suitably qualified person.

3. This development may require a permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 from the Environment Agency for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within eight metres of the bank of the Salt Eye Brook which, is designated a ‘main river’. Some activities are also now excluded or exempt. A permit is separate to and in addition to any planning permission granted. Further details and guidance are available on the GOV.UK website: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities-environmental-permits.

Page 100 Agenda Item 6

PART 1

REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR PLACE

TO THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

ON 25 th July 2019

TITLE: PLANNING APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

RECOMMENDATION: That the report be noted

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To set out details of applications determined by the Strategic Director Place in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS: (Available for public inspection) Details of the applications are available on the Council’s Public Access Website http://publicaccess.salford.gov.uk/publicaccess/default.aspx If you would like to access this information in an alternative format, please contact the planning office on 0161-779 6195 or e-mail [email protected]

KEY DECISION: NO

DETAILS: See attached schedule

KEY COUNCIL POLICIES: Performance Management

EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND IMPLICATIONS:N/A

ASSESSMENT OF RISK:N/A

SOURCE OF FUNDING: N/A

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Supplied by N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Supplied by N/A

OTHER DIRECTORATES CONSULTED:N/A

CONTACT OFFICER: Liz Taylor – 0161 779 4803

WARD(S) TO WHICH REPORT RELATE(S): As specified in the attached schedule

Page 101 Recommendation

PER = Approve AUTH = Consent REF = Refuse NO OBJECTION = Allow the scheme as no objections have been received. An example would be used in response to consultations from neighbouring authorities or in relation to prior approvals when no objections have been received DISCON = Discharge of condition – an example would be that the submitted information is approved PDIS = Part discharge of conditions requested – an example of this would be that negotiations are still on-going with regard to some of the requested conditions or the condition is a multi staged condition and part is acceptable NDIS = Not Discharging condition requested – an example would be the submitted information is not acceptable and the decision is to refuse

Application Type

FUL = Full application ADV = Advert Application OUT = Outline Application HH = Householder Application REM = Reserved Matters COU = Change of use LBC = Listed Building Consent CON = Conservation Area Consent DISCON = Formal Discharge of Condition NMA = Non-Material Amendment MMA = Minor material Amendment DEMCON = Demolition Consultation TPO = Tree Application TEL56 = Telecommunication Notification ART16 = Art16 Notification PDE = General Permitted Development Extension

Page 102 DELEGATED DECISIONS BY DCM

APPLICATION No: 19/73655/ART16 DATE VALID: 10.05.2019

APPLICANT:

LOCATION: Article 16 Land At Adjacent To Hulton Park Manchester Road Over Hulton Bolton BL5 1BH

PROPOSAL: Article 16 Consultation received from Bolton Council (Planning Inspectorate Ref: APP/N4205/V/18/3208426) for restoration works to Hulton Park.

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 3 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73704/ART16 DATE VALID: 13.06.2019

APPLICANT:Olivia Williams

LOCATION: Article 16 Oakfield High School Long Lane Hindley Green Wigan WN2 4XA

PROPOSAL: Article 16 application received from Wigan Council ( application ref: A/19/87196/FUL) for the creation of an additional 20 car parking spaces together with associated fencing and low level lighting

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73449/HH DATE VALID: 09.05.2019 WARD: Barton APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs Rothwell

LOCATION: 17 Kilrush Avenue Eccles M30 0JZ

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of a single storey rear extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 10 July 2019 ______

Page 103 APPLICATION No: 19/73505/NMA DATE VALID: 03.05.2019 WARD: Barton APPLICANT:Forviva Housing Association

LOCATION: Land Adjacent To 44 Haddon Road Eccles

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission 18/72315/FUL for approved drawing Proposed Plans and Elevation 1038 A 004 Rev G to provide a photovoltaic array to the southern aspect of the roof.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73697/CLUD DATE VALID: 27.06.2019 WARD: Barton APPLICANT:The Gid Rich Project

LOCATION: 48 Cannon Street Eccles M30 0FT

PROPOSAL: Lawful Development Certificate for an existing use for the conversion of a C3 dwelling to C4 HMO prior to the implementation of the Article 4 Direction on the 25th November 2018.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73556/PDE DATE VALID: 31.05.2019 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mrs Francis Potts And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 9 Fellfoot Close Worsley M28 1YD

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey rear extension.

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 July 2019 ______

Page 104 APPLICATION No: 19/73387/COU DATE VALID: 09.05.2019 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:Mr S Mendelson

LOCATION: 240 Great Clowes Street Salford M7 2DY

PROPOSAL: Conversion of existing property to six bed HMO (house in multiple occupancy) (C4)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73508/HH DATE VALID: 03.05.2019 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:Mr Hoffman

LOCATION: 27 King Street Higher Broughton Salford M7 4PU

PROPOSAL: Erection of a part single, part two storey rear extension, loft conversion with dormers to front and rear, raising of roof height by 1.000m. (Re -submission of planning application 18/72862/HH).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73571/HH DATE VALID: 16.05.2019 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:Chief Rabbi Heimlich

LOCATION: 64 Northumberland Street Salford M7 4DG

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey front extension, single storey side and rear extension, raised decking area to the rear, demolition of existing single storey extensions.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 3 July 2019 ______

Page 105 APPLICATION No: 19/73754/DISCON DATE VALID: 21.06.2019 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:Mr Paul Gwynne

LOCATION: 179 - 193 Great Cheetham Street West Salford M7 2DW

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 9 - (ventilation) and 10 - (noise mitigation and ventilation) attached to planning permission 18/71513/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 10 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73432/FUL DATE VALID: 17.04.2019 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Mr SIMON RYDER

LOCATION: 189 Liverpool Road Cadishead Irlam M44 5XH

PROPOSAL: Retrospective planning application for erection of outbuilding to land to the rear of 189 Liverpool Road

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73493/FUL DATE VALID: 03.05.2019 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Mr John Stringer

LOCATION: Former Irlam Conservative Club Astley Road Irlam M44 6AB

PROPOSAL: Application for variation of condition 2 (approved plans) (change to house types and elevations) attached to planning permission 14/64783/FUL

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 5 July 2019 ______

Page 106 APPLICATION No: 19/73531/HH DATE VALID: 22.05.2019 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Mrs Sally Clemens

LOCATION: 4 Berkshire Drive Cadishead M44 5YA

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of single storey rear extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 3 July 2019 ______

APPLICATI ON No: 19/73550/HH DATE VALID: 11.05.2019 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs Graham

LOCATION: 9 Roscoe Road Irlam M44 6AZ

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing extension and erection of two storey side extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73146/HH DATE VALID: 10.03.2019 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mrs Stephanie Davidson

LOCATION: 13 Branksome Drive Salford M6 7PP

PROPOSAL: Erection of part two-storey and part single-storey rear extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

Page 107 APPLICATION No: 16/68464/FUL DATE VALID: 02.07.2016 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr Jackson

LOCATION: Former Crown Bingo Hall Church Street Eccles Salford M30 0LZ

PROPOSAL: Part demolition of existing building and construction of an eight storey side and rear addition comprising 82 apartments, commercial unit (Use Classes A1, A2, B1, D1 and D2) measuring 178 square metres and car and bicycle parking

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73451/DISCON DATE VALID: 20.04.2019 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr Dan Wainwright

LOCATION: 39 Victoria Crescent Eccles M30 9AN

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of Conditions 4 (Cycle Store), 5 (Lighting Scheme) and 6 (Landscaping) attached to planning permission 17/71061/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73507/HH DATE VALID: 03.05.2019 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Rebecca Best

LOCATION: 48 Lansdowne Road Eccles M30 9PF

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey rear extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 July 2019 ______

Page 108 APPLICATION No: 19/73510/HH DATE VALID: 03.05.2019 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs MARY MURPHY

LOCATION: 25 Bradford Road Eccles M30 9FF

PROPOSAL: Erection of a first floor rear extension together with alterations to elevations.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 2 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73518/FUL DATE VALID: 22.05.2019 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr Peter Martin

LOCATION: 57 Shakespeare Crescent Eccles M30 0PB

PROPOSAL: Conversion of existing property from 5 bed HMO to 3 bed HMO and creation of 2 no. self-contained units

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73590/DISCON DATE VALID: 18.05.2019 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr Jamie Hall

LOCATION: J Fletcher Engineering Lansdowne Road Eccles M30 9PD

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 8 (construction method statement) attached to planning permission 18/71247/FUL.

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 July 2019 ______

Page 109 APPLICATION No: 19/73663/PDE DATE VALID: 29.05.2019 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr And Mrs Ashworth C/O Mr Harry Jackson

LOCATION: 6 Francis Street Eccles M30 9PR

PROPOSAL: Single storey mono pitched rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 3 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73656/DISCON DATE VALID: 03.06.2019 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs Mark and Sarah Cain and Vince -Cain

LOCATION: 37 Ellesmere Road Eccles Manchester M30 9JH

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 3 (materials) attached to planning permission 19/72950/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73005/FUL DATE VALID: 08.02.2019 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Mrs B. Marshall

LOCATION: 202 Liverpool Road Irlam M44 6FE

PROPOSAL: Conversion from Shop (Class A1) to 2 no.self-contained flats (Class C3) at ground floor level to include demolition of external store room and alterations to elevations and installation of 1.5m high fence/gate

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 3 July 2019 ______

Page 110 APPLICATION No: 19/73254/HH DATE VALID: 18.03.2019 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Miss G Haris

LOCATION: 1 Sesame Gardens Irlam M44 6TQ

PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for the erection of a two storey side extension and change of roof form over dwelling to gable from hipped

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73560/TPO DATE VALID: 14.05.2019 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Peel

LOCATION: Boysnope Park Golf Club Liverpool Road Eccles M30 7RF

PROPOSAL: Crown raise to provide a 3.5m height from the surrounding ground level one horse chestnut tree (T1), two beech (T2 and T3) and one sycamore tree (T4).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 3 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73633/TPO DATE VALID: 30.05.2019 WARD: Irlam APPLICANT:Peel

LOCATION: Boysnope Park Golf Club Liverpool Road Eccles M30 7RF

PROPOSAL: Crown raise to provide a 3.5m clearance above ground level trees within areas (A1, A2 and A3) fronting Liverpool Road.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 July 2019 ______

Page 111 APPLICATION No: 19/73464/NMA DATE VALID: 25.04.2019 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Fortis Riverside

LOCATION: Weir Site Adelphi Street Salford M3 6GG

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission 18/71414/FUL for alteration to the appearance and position on site of a sub station building

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73490/DISCON DATE VALID: 01.05.2019 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Mr David Savage Riverside

LOCATION: Land North Of Senior St Springfield Lane M3 7GE

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 3 (materials), 11 (Japanese knotweed), 12 (ecological enhancement plan), 16 (external wall specification), 26 (gym acoustics) attached to planning permission 18/71330/FUL.

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 24 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73535/DISCON DATE VALID: 09.05.2019 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Fortis Riverside

LOCATION: Weir Site Adelphi Street Salford

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 13 - (buffer zone scheme) attached to planning permission 18/71414/FUL.

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 July 2019 ______

Page 112 APPLICATION No: 19/73326/COU DATE VALID: 12.04.2019 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Sherif Elkhadem

LOCATION: 211 Littleton Road Salford M7 3TJ

PROPOSAL: Change of Use from 3 Bedroom Residential Dwelling C3 to 3 Bedroom "small" HMO

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73551/HH DATE VALID: 28.05.2019 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Joseph Roberts

LOCATION: 22 Brantwood Road Salford M7 4FL

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing garage, erection of part single storey/part two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and front porch.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73662/TPO DATE VALID: 04.06.2019 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Tom Cleary

LOCATION: 48A Vine Street Salford M7 3PG

PROPOSAL: Fell one beech tree (T1).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 5 July 2019 ______

Page 113 APPLICATION No: 19/73694/PDE DATE VALID: 04.06.2019 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Abenson C/O Mr Kevin Maloney

LOCATION: 2 Park Avenue Salford M7 4SF

PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 3 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73674/TPO DATE VALID: 06.06.2019 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mrs R Klyne

LOCATION: 44 Singleton Road Salford M7 4LN

PROPOSAL: Crown lift to provide a 5m clearance from the surrounding ground level, prune branches to provide a 3m clearance from the house structure and 20% thin one beech (T1).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 5 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 18/72242/FUL DATE VALID: 06.08.2018 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:

LOCATION: 28 King Street And 49-51 Queen Street Blackfriars Salford M3 7DG

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing and former light industrial / commercial units, and the construction of a residential-led mixed-use development. Erection off a building ranging from 7-14 storey high comprising 104 residential apartments (C3 use) with ancillary communal spaces, a commercial unit (A1, A2, A3, B1, D1), together with associated parking and amenity space.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 July 2019 ______

Page 114 APPLICATION No: 18/72850/FUL DATE VALID: 21.12.2018 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr R Cunliffe

LOCATION: Downtown Woden Street Salford M5 4UU

PROPOSAL: Change of use of previously approved ground floor ancillary accommodation area in Block C measuring 102 sqm into two new residential units comprising 1 one-bedroom apartment and 1 two-bedroom apartment

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/72901/DISCON DATE VALID: 11.01.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr John Walls

LOCATION: 7 Dakota Avenue Salford M50 2PU

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of partial compliance of conditions 4 (Travel Plan), 7 (crime prevention) and 8 (lighting) attached to planning permission 16/67637/FUL.

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 3 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73218/FUL DATE VALID: 23.03.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Khawaja Salahuddin

LOCATION: 92 Phoebe Street Salford M5 3PH

PROPOSAL: Proposed change of use from A5 (hot food takeaway) to A3 (restaurant and cafe)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

Page 115 APPLICATION No: 19/73276/DISCON DATE VALID: 21.03.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:McGoff

LOCATION: Land On Woden Street Salford

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 12(iii) - (Land Contamination) and 18 - (Travel Plan) attached to planning permission 14/65586/FUL.

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73357/ADV DATE VALID: 06.04.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr C Meredith

LOCATION: Land Adjacent To Southbound Carriageway, Albion Way , Salford M5 4DB

PROPOSAL: Display of 4 no. internally illuminated LED media signs on poles

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73427/DISCON DATE VALID: 17.04.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Ms Kirsty Steel

LOCATION: Land Bounded By Trinity Way, Blackfriars Road, Bury Street And Garden Lane Salford

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of partial compliance of condition 5 (Boundary Treatments) attached to planning permission 14/65407/FUL.

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

Page 116 APPLICATION No: 19/73442/DISCON DATE VALID: 18.04.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Phil Marsden

LOCATION: Land Bounded By Cleminson St To North, New Bailey St To East, River Irwell To South-east, Trinity Way And North Star Drive To South And Adelphi St To West; Known As Salford Central, Extending To 17.7 Hectares. M3 5JT

Salford M3 5JT

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 36 - (Archaeology), 60 - (Drainage Strategy) and 68 - (Environment Management Plan) attached to planning permission 09/57950/EIAHYB.

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 5 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73479/FUL DATE VALID: 30.04.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:MBNL (EE (UK) Ltd And H3G (UK) Ltd)

LOCATION: Land At TA Barracks Eccles New Road Salford M5 4DU

PROPOSAL: The removal of the existing 15 metre high monopole (supporting 6 no. antennas) and 4 no. equipment cabinets, and their replacement with a new 20 metre high monopole supporting 6 no. antenna apertures and 4 no. 600mm dishes, 7 no. equipment cabinets at ground level and ancillary development

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73506/COU DATE VALID: 09.05.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Matthew PEL Developments Ltd

LOCATION: Fresh 140 Chapel Street Salford M3 6AF

PROPOSAL: Change of use only from A1 Shops to D1 Non-residential Institutions.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

Page 117 APPLICATION No: 19/73547/HH DATE VALID: 10.05.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Sybaris Lomax -Dwent

LOCATION: 22 Wythop Gardens Salford M5 4QF

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing garage and extension, erection of single storey side extension, single storey rear extension, alterations to the front facade and resurfacing of the existing driveway.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73572/NMA DATE VALID: 16.05.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:n/a

LOCATION: Embankment West Off Salford Approach And New Kings Head Yard Chapel Street Salford

PROPOSAL: Application for a Non-Material Amendment to planning permission 17/70626/FUL to alter the ground floor layout of Block B and changes to the external landscaping.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 4 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73575/COU DATE VALID: 17.05.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Ms A Richardson

LOCATION: Suite 1A Ground Floor The Alexandra The Quays Salford M50 3SP

PROPOSAL: Change of use of Part of ground floor offices (Class B1) to Medical Aesthetics Clinic (Class D1)

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 July 2019 ______

Page 118 APPLICATION No: 19/73585/NMA DATE VALID: 18.05.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:.

LOCATION: Embankment 100 Greengate Salford M3 1RJ

PROPOSAL: Application for a Non-Material Amendment to planning permission 16/68132/FUL for a new roof terrace area and viewing deck, a mezzanine floor, internal alterations to the ground and roof level layouts, alterations to the public realm and introduction of a new lift opening.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 3 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73614/DISCON DATE VALID: 07.06.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Phil Marsden

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 11 (car park) attached to planning permission 19/73075/REM.

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73644/DISCON DATE VALID: 31.05.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:X1 Developments

LOCATION: Vacant Land Bounded By Trafford Road And Elmira Way Salford

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 7 (verification) attached to planning permission 16/67937/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 July 2019 ______

Page 119 APPLICATION No: 19/73661/NMA DATE VALID: 04.06.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Chris Edge

LOCATION: Land Ordsall Lane Between Dyer Street Everard Street Salford

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission 15/66357/FUL relocation of store entrance and installation of full length louvres.

The proposed amendments are shown on the submitted drawing (ref. 3765-SK-002).

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 5 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73553/HH DATE VALID: 13.05.2019 WARD: Pendlebury APPLICANT:MR ELLISON & MR ROBERTS ELLISON/ROBERTS

LOCATION: 18 Ross Drive Swinton M27 6PS

PROPOSAL: Erection of part single storey/part two storey side extension and single storey rear extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 18/72363/HAZ DATE VALID: 30.08.2018 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Liberty Taylor North

LOCATION: The British Oxygen Company Limited Priestley Road Swinton M28 2LX

PROPOSAL: Application for hazardous substances consent

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 July 2019 ______

Page 120 APPLICATION No: 19/73367/FUL DATE VALID: 10.05.2019 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Ms Jo Shaughnessy North

LOCATION: 457 Chorley Road Swinton M27 9LQ

PROPOSAL: Change of use from A1 (shop) at ground floor and C3 (residential) at first floor to B1 (office) including alterations to elevations

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/72877/FUL DATE VALID: 29.01.2019 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Bellway Homes Limited (Manchester) South

LOCATION: Land Formerly 220 Folly Lane Swinton

PROPOSAL: Temporary erection of a sales cabin and associated parking area (temporary for 1 year).

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 24 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73231/HH DATE VALID: 08.05.2019 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr Andrew Taylor South

LOCATION: 54 Stanwell Road Swinton M27 5TD

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey side extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

Page 121 APPLICATION No: 19/73397/HH DATE VALID: 2 3.04.2019 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr D Johnson South

LOCATION: 6 Sheringham Drive Swinton M27 5QF

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of two storey rear and side extensions

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 3 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73636/PDE DATE VALID: 30.05.2019 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr Akbar Parsian C/O Mr Sohail Musa South

LOCATION: 22 Wellington Road Swinton Manchester M27 4BR

PROPOSAL: Proposed single storey extension at rear to include kitchen.

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/7 3664/TPO DATE VALID: 29.05.2019 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr Paul Golds South

LOCATION: Land To The Rear 15 Borchardt Drive Swinton Manchester

PROPOSAL: Reduce overhanging branches back to the boundary fence trees within group G1.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 5 July 2019 ______

Page 122 APPLICATION No: 19/73236/HH DATE VALID: 20.05.2019 WARD: Winton APPLICANT:Mrs SHIRLEY CHRISTOPHER

LOCATION: 144 Verdun Road Eccles M30 8HJ

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 3 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73268/HH DATE VALID: 15.03.2019 WARD: Winton APPLICANT:Mrs Ashley Fletchure

LOCATION: 53 Weymouth Road Eccles M30 8NN

PROPOSAL: Erection of a part two storey/part single storey side extension.

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 8 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73557/PDE DATE VALID: 22.05.2019 WARD: Winton APPLICANT:Mr P Lewis

LOCATION: 7 Hastings Road Eccles M30 8JR

PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension.

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73693/PDE DATE VALID: 04.06.2019 WARD: Winton APPLICANT:Mr Stephen Lawton C/O Mr Craig Ronson

LOCATION: 24 Aldred Street Eccles M30 8PS

PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension

DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 3 July 2019 ______

Page 123 APPLICATION No: 19/72911/NMA DATE VALID: 11.03.2019 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Lee ONeill North

LOCATION: Wharton And Cleggs Lane Church And Community Centre Cleggs Lane Little Hulton M38 9RW

PROPOSAL: APPLICATION TO A NON-MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMISSION 17/70252/FUL FOR REDUCTION OF SIZE OF THE NEW BUILDING AND ALTERATIONS TO THE ELEVATIONS.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73389/OUT DATE VALID: 11.04.2019 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Joe Burnett North

LOCATION: Ashtonfields Site Part Of British Coal Yard Ravenscraig Road Little Hulton Worsley M38 9PU

PROPOSAL: Application for variation of condition 23 (Noise rating level) attached to planning permission 17/69776/OUT

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73623/FUL DATE VALID: 25.05.2019 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Ken Jones North

LOCATION: Unit 14 And 2 Walkden Town Centre New Ellesmere Approach Bolton Road Worsley M28 3ZH

PROPOSAL: The construction of 2 no flow forge plant cages/compounds and the installation of air conditioning/refrigeration plant thereto together with the forming of 3 no. openings in external cladding/soffit associated with the same

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 1 July 2019 ______

Page 124 APPLICATION No: 17/69985/DISCON DATE VALID: 15.05.2017 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Miss Jodie Marlow

LOCATION: 72 Chatsworth Road Swinton M28 2NT

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 2 (Plans), 3 (Materials), 4 (Land Contamination), 5 (Ecological Mitigation), 6 (Trees - Protection), and 7 (Trees - Method Statement) attached to planning permission 17/69607/FUL

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 12 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 18/72032/DISCON DATE VALID: 22.08.2018 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr And Mrs Paul Gillespie

LOCATION: Land Rear Of 300 Leigh Road Worsley Manchester

PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of conditions 3 (materials building), 4 (materials access drive) and 5 (drainage) attached to planning permission 18/71236/FUL.

DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73269/HH DATE VALID: 20.03.2019 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr Craig Kay

LOCATION: 4 Vendale Avenue Swinton M27 0AW

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey and a single storey rear extension together with alterations to elevations.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 3 July 2019 ______

Page 125 APPLICATION No: 19/73415/HH DATE VALID: 30.04.2019 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs J Broome

LOCATION: 169 Worsley Road Worsley M28 2SJ

PROPOSAL: Erection of attached garage to the side, glazed canopy, balcony to the rear, porch and log store to the front. Material change to part front elevation and new bifold doors.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 5 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73452/CLUDP DATE VALID: 09.05.2019 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs Myers

LOCATION: 32 Wardley Hall Lane Worsley M28 2RL

PROPOSAL: Certificate of lawfulness for the proposed erection of a single storey rear extension.

DECISION: Refuse DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73497/HH DATE VALID: 13.05.2019 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mrs Ivy Wroe

LOCATION: 24 Riding Fold Lane Worsley M28 2HD

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey side and rear extensions.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

Page 126 APPLICATION No: 19/73501/HH DATE VALID: 02.05.2019 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mrs Genna Oliver

LOCATION: 33 Meadow Gate Worsley M28 2RB

PROPOSAL: Erection of part two storey/part single storey side extension and single storey rear extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 3 July 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73516/HH DATE VALID: 04.05.2019 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs Wright

LOCATION: 1 Broadlands Road Swinton M28 2WU

PROPOSAL: Loft conversion with rear dormers.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73229/HH DATE VALID: 01.05.2019 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Karl Monks South

LOCATION: 12 Cranleigh Drive Worsley M28 7ET

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey side extension and construction of two front roof dormers, together with alterations to elevations.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 26 June 2019 ______

Page 127 APPLICATION No: 19/73403/HH DATE VALID: 24.04.2019 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Maxwell S Brunt South

LOCATION: 3 Cherrywood Close Worsley M28 7WA

PROPOSAL: Erection of first floor side extension, replacement roof to the existing rear extension.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 25 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73580/HH DATE VALID: 17.05.2019 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs bamping South

LOCATION: 5 Shalbourne Road Worsley M28 0SH

PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey side extension

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

APPLICATION No: 19/73610/NMA DATE VALID: 24.05.2019 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Ms Amanda Dundas South

LOCATION: Tyne Court Worsley M28 0SN

PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission 16/68969/FUL to change the boundary to the west of the site to 1.8m railings between the scheme and adjacent properties. Amended footpath to lead to new exit onto Tynesbank.

DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 28 June 2019 ______

Page 128 Agenda Item 7

PART 1

REPORT OF The Strategic Director Place

TO THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL ON 25 th July 2019 2019

TITLE: PLANNING APPEALS

RECOMMENDATION: That the report be noted

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To set out details of appeals received and determined

KEY DECISION: NO

DETAILS: See attached schedule

KEY COUNCIL POLICIES: Performance Management

EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND IMPLICATIONS:N/A

ASSESSMENT OF RISK:N/A

SOURCE OF FUNDING: N/A

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Supplied by N/A

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Supplied by N/A

OTHER DIRECTORATES CONSULTED:N/A

CONTACT OFFICER: Liz Taylor 0161 779 4803

WARD(S) TO WHICH REPORT RELATE(S): As indicated in the attached schedule.

Page 129 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL

REPORT ON PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT APPEALS DECIDED

APPLICATION No: 18/71711/FUL

APPELLANT: Miss Anna Wong

APPEAL SITE: Showmans Guild Site Broadway Salford M50 2UG

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 12 (openable lights) attached to planning permission 06/53613/FUL

WARD: Ordsall

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

APPEAL DECISION: Appeal dismissed

DECIDED ON: 24 June 2019

On the 26 th July 2018 planning permission was refused for the variation of condition 12 (openable lights) attached to planning permission 06/53613/FUL. Condition 12 states that:-

“There shall be no openable lights to any dwelling in block A, B and the West façade of block C. The openable lights, including the frame and fixture, in addition to the façade itself shall give a minimum sound reduction of Rw=40dB”.

The reason given for the condition was: To safeguard the amenity of future occupants of the development in accordance with policy DES7 of the City of Salford UDP.

The planning inspector considered the main issue in this case was whether condition No12 is necessary and reasonable, having regard to the living conditions of occupants of the apartments and the possibility of complaints in respect of noise associated with the operation of the adjacent timber yard.

The appeal site lies along Broadway, a main access road to the industrial and commercial areas of Salford. Whilst there are some residential properties, the area consists of predominantly commercial and industrial based uses. The appeal site comprises three rectangular residential towers (Block A: Lexington Court, Block B: Hudson Court, Block C: Madison Court), where each tower is 6 storeys tall and positioned behind each other, facing side-on to Broadway. To the north and west of the appeal site is GE Robinson, a large saw mill and timber yard which consists of 3 open sided warehouse structures, an external storage area and other smaller buildings for work areas and offices. The site has unrestricted usage and is able to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The Inspector noted that noise and disturbance is difficult to determine as each neighbour will have different thresholds with what they deem to be acceptable. In this particular scenario, the noise generated is not constant and vary from the use of the timber yard such as forklift trucks, voices of workers, machinery, deliveries, stacking, p.a. system, dropping and sawing of timber,

Page 130 and other sources such as vehicular traffic along Broadway.

The appellants submitted a noise assessment in support of their appeal. Whilst the methodology employed in terms of projecting proposed noise levels was undertaken with regards to the BS, the stated guidance was not aimed at assessing industrial, commercial or entertainment noise and was instead focussed on traffic noise. The guidance did also not look into intermittent noise which comes with industrial processes which was main consideration in the appeal

It was noted that the allowance of openable windows could give rise to complaints regarding the timber yard and that could have serious consequences for the timber yard which is a long- established use and source of employment.

The Inspector considered that whilst the planning policy position and guidance has changed marginally since the previous inspectors decision, the overriding consideration with regards to maintaining the co-existence between the apartments and the operations of the timber yard has not. Whilst the Inspector noted comments from the appellants that the dwellinghouses along Quay View are able to open their windows, these dwellings were built some time before the appeal properties. The buildings are also two storeys in height and have larger structures in between which offer some means of sound mitigation. Additionally, the mere existence of these dwellings which have openable windows would not justify the acceptability of having openable windows at the appeal property which is at a greater height and in close proximity to the industrial use.

The Inspector stated that if complaints are made as a result of the allowance of having openable windows, then the regulator would not be able to compel residents to close their windows when assessing the noise, with serious repercussions to the timber yard business who may be required to change their operations which is a valid concern. Whilst the Inspector also noted comments that the appellant believes that the timber yard is being placed above the welfare of 150 residents, the planning system requires a balancing exercise between social, economic and environmental factors.

Substantial weight was given to the co-existence between the timber yard and the appeal property which requires that the current situation of having windows that are sealed closed as essential to maintaining this relationship.

Consequently, the Inspector found that the variation of condition to allow openable windows would cause unacceptable and harmful impacts to the living conditions of current and future residents as a result of noise which would result in the possibility of complaints in respect of noise associated with the operation of the adjacent timber yard.

For the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised, the planning inspector concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.

Page 131 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL REPORT OF NEW

PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT APPEALS RECEIVED

ENFORCEMENT NO: 15/00301/WPP3

APPEAL SITE: 1 Lancaster House, 7-11 Lancaster Road, Salford

WARD: Weaste and Seedley

DATE RECEIVED: 10 th July 2019

An enforcement notice was served for the creation of hard standing to the rear of the property without planning permission.

The appeal is under grounds (A) that planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the notice, (F) that the step required to comply with the requirements of the notice are excessive and lesser stapes would overcome the objections and (G) the time given to comply with the notice is too short.

Retrospective planning applications have been refused on 8 th April 2016 (15/67411/FUL) and 29 th June 2016 (16/68147/FUL) respectively, for the resurfacing and extension of the parking area to include an additional 14 car parking spaces.

The latter application was refused for the following reason:

“The development introduces a significant area of new/replacement hard surfacing within an area with known surface water drainage issues. No information has been submitted with the application to demonstrate that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the impact on surface water flooding. It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy EN19, Salford City Council's Flood Risk and Development Planning Guidance, the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.”

The enforcement notice relies on this refusal of planning permission, which was itself not appealed.

Page 132