Public Document Pack
Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel
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, 3 October 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 breaks for Members at approximately 11:15 a.m. until 11:30 a.m., and at 1:00pm to 1:30 p.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 - 4) on 19 September 2019.
5 Planning applications and related development control issues. (Pages 5 - 10)
9:30AM
5a 19/73971/FUL Land Off Hilton Lane, Worsley M28 3YB (Pages 11 - 44)
11:30AM
5b 19/73835/FUL Land To The Rear Of 25 Ellesmere Avenue, Eccles (Pages 45 - 66) M30 9GZ
5c 19/73934/COU 6 Brook Street, Swinton M27 9PA (Pages 67 - 74) 5d 19/73649/ADV Land Off Green Lane, Eccles M30 0RJ (Pages 75 - 80)
1:30PM
5e 19/73053/FUL Former British Vita Salford, Seaford Road, Salford M6 (Pages 81 - 102) 6AQ
5f Plots C1 and C2, Land Surrounding Stanley Street Bound By Trinity (Pages 103 - 122) Way, Irwell Street And River Irwell M3 5DA
5g 18/72443/FUL 621 Eccles New Road, Salford M50 1EP (Pages 123 - 148)
6 Planning applications determined under delegated authority. (Pages 149 - 166)
7 Planning appeals. (Pages 167 - 170)
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
19th September 2019
Meeting commenced: 11.45 a.m. “ ended: 12.20 p.m.
PRESENT: Councillor Mashiter - in the Chair
Councillors Antrobus, Cammell, Clarke, Dawson, Dickman, Edwards, Linden, Nelson, N. Reynolds and Walker
Please note that a list of persons in attendance in respect of matters referred to in Minute 23 is included at Appendix A.
20. WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Burch, K. Garrido, Morris and Sharpe.
The Chair outlined the procedure for the meeting.
21. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
22. MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
RESOLVED: THAT the minutes of the meeting held on 25th July 2019 be agreed as a correct record.
23. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
Full details of the matters referred to in this Minute are contained in the report of the Strategic Director Place (Main 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
19/73607/FUL 275-283 Chapel Street Erection of an eight- Please refer to Minute Salford storey building for a 24 below Jerrold Manufacturing, M3 5JZ mixed use comprising Pension Fund C/O commercial floorspace Together Commercial at ground floor with 49 apartments above
19/73543/REM Ashtonfields Site Part Of Reserved Matters Granted British Coal Yard planning application Mr Joe Burnett Ravenscraig Road pursuant to outline Little Hulton planning permission Worsley 17/69776/OUT for the M38 9PU appearance, Page 1 landscaping, layout and scale for B1(b), B1(c), B2 and B8 employment units, landscaping works, car parking and vehicular, pedestrian circulation and other associated works
24. 19/73607/FUL – 275-283 CHAPEL STREET, SALFORD M3 5JZ – ERECTION OF AN EIGHT- STOREY BUILDING FOR A MIXED USE COMPRISING COMMERCIAL FLOORSPACE AT GROUND FLOOR WITH 49 APARTMENTS ABOVE
RESOLVED: THAT planning permission be granted, subject to (a) the planning conditions listed in the report, and (b) the authority to discharge condition 15 (Materials) being delegated to the Assistant Director Planning & Housing in consultation with the Chair of the Panel, and that –
(i) The City Solicitor be authorised to enter into a legal agreement, in accordance with Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to secure the following:-
. Financial contributions for:
o Open Space – £144,018 (charged at £1,143 per bed space) to be put towards improvements to St. Stephen Street Gardens bounded by St. Stephen Street and Lamb Lane, Trinity; and
o Public Realm - £73,500 (charged at £1,500 per apartment) to be put towards improvements to Cathedral Walk connecting Great George Street and Ford Street.
(ii) The applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions stated in the report, on completion of such a legal agreement, and
(iii) The authority be given for the decision notice relating to the application to be issued (subject to the conditions and reasons listed in the report) on completion of the above-mentioned legal agreement.
25. PLANNING APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY
The Strategic Director Place submitted a report containing details of planning applications that he had determined under delegated authority during July, August and September 2019 and were not, therefore, for consideration by the Panel.
RESOLVED: THAT the content of the report be noted.
26. PLANNING APPEALS
The Strategic Director Place submitted a report which provided details of appeals that had recently been determined and received.
RESOLVED: THAT the content of the report be noted.
Page 2 APPENDIX A – LIST OF ATTENDEES
APPLICATION REF. IN FAVOUR OBJECTING
19/73607/FUL Richard Peel 275-283 Chapel Street Salford M3 5JZ
19/73543/REM Gavin Winter Ashtonfields Site Part of British Coal Yard Ravenscraig Road Little Hulton Worsley M38 9PU
Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5
REPORT
Of
Strategic Director Place
To the
Planning & Transportation Regulatory Panel
On
3rd October 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 5
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;
(c) Letters and other documents from interested parties.
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 6
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 7 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 (Please refer to Agenda Front Sheet for Page Numbers)
DATE: 03.10.2019
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
19/73971/FUL RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
TIME OF MEETING: 09:30am
PROPOSAL: Erection of up to 209 dwellings, creation of open space and associated infrastructure and works Re-submission of 18/72845/FUL
LOCATION: Land Off Hilton Lane Worsley M28 3YB
APPLICANT: Mr Matthew Shipman
Page 8
Eccles
19/73835/FUL RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
TIME OF MEETING: 11:30am
PROPOSAL: Erection of one dwelling Re-submission of 18/72790/FUL
LOCATION: Land To The Rear Of 25 Ellesmere Avenue Eccles M30 9GZ
APPLICANT: Mr Geoffrey Buckley
Swinton North
19/73934/COU RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
TIME OF MEETING: 11:30am
PROPOSAL: Change of use from C3 dwelling to 10-bed HMO (House In Multiple Occupancy) (Sui Generis)
LOCATION: 6 Brook Street Swinton M27 9PA
APPLICANT: Mr S Eckstein
Eccles
19/73649/ADV RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
TIME OF MEETING: 11:30am
PROPOSAL: Display of 1 no v-board hoarding
LOCATION: Land Off Green Lane Eccles M30 0RJ
APPLICANT: Mr Matthew Shipman
Page 9 Irwell Riverside
19/73053/FUL RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE
TIME OF MEETING: 13:30
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 136 residential dwellings and associated works with site access off Seaford Road
LOCATION: Former British Vita Salford Seaford Road Salford M6 6AQ
APPLICANT: First Names (Jersey) Ltd And First Names Corporate Services
Ordsall
19/73721/REM RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE
TIME OF MEETING: 13:30
PROPOSAL: Details of reserved matters for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for development of Plot C1 for the erection of a 23-storey building with associated 6-storey podium block to provide 211 apartments and ground floor commercial uses, together with associated ancillary facilities and servicing pursuant to outline planning permission 16/68325/OUT
LOCATION: Plots C1 and C2 Land Surrounding Stanley Street Bound By Trinity Way, Irwell Street And River Irwell M3 5DA
APPLICANT: Mr Alan McBride
Weaste And Seedley
18/72443/FUL RECOMMENDATION:APPROVE
TIME OF MEETING: 13:30
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building, erection of a nine-storey residential building containing 140 units and a six-storey office building with parking provision, amenity space, landscaping and associated works. Resubmission of 17/70933/FUL.
LOCATION: 621 Eccles New Road Salford M50 1EP
APPLICANT: West One Residence Ltd
Page 10 Agenda Item 5a
APPLICATION No: 19/73971/FUL APPLICANT: Bellway Homes (Manchester Division) LOCATION: Land Off Hilton Lane, Worsley, M28 3YB PROPOSAL: Erection of up to 209 dwellings, creation of open space and associated infrastructure and works (Re-submission of 18/72845/FUL) WARD: Little Hulton
Description of Site and Surrounding Area
The application site extends to 6.59ha and is grassland 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 east 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 124 x three bed and 85 x four bed houses. The development would be in the form of
Page 11 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 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 site layout plan shows an area to the west of the site which would provide for 15 allotments with ancillary infrastructure.
The application is supported by the following documents
- Design and Access Statement - Transport Assessment - Highways Technical Note - Air Quality Assessment - Travel Plan - Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy - 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 for a Programme of Archaeological Work - Arboricultural Impact Assessment - Environmental 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 - Ecology Statement on Buffer Zone - Landscape Masterplan including Landscape Management Plan and Schedule.
Relevant Site History
18/72845/FUL - Erection of up to 209 dwellings, creation of open space and associated infrastructure and works
This application was refuse by Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel on the 25th July 2019 for the following reason:
The proposed development would increase traffic at the already over-capacity mini-roundabout at the junction of Hilton Lane and Newearth Road. As a result of this development users of this junction would be severely inconvenienced by reason of increased queuing and delays. This negative impact is not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme and the proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.
The applicant has lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate against this decision.
Publicity
Site Notice: Non HH Article 15 Date Displayed: 22 August 2019 Reason: Article 13
Press Advert: Manchester Weekly News Salford EditionDate Published: 29 August 2019 Reason: Article 15 Affect Public right of Way
Page 12 Neighbour Notification
Neighbouring occupiers and those who objected to the previous application have been notified of the application. A total of 115 addresses have been notified.
Representations
110 objections have been received from 89 different properties in response to the application publicity. In addition, letters of objection have been received from Barbara Keeley MP, Councillor Edwards and Councillor Critchley. The issues raised can be summarised as follows:
Loss of Greenspace The green space brings a lovely atmosphere to the community and a desirable area to live. This is a benefit to the local community. Recreational areas are being lost all over the City as it becomes a concrete jungle. Bringing more residents to the area will place more demand on existing greenspaces therefore this site should not be developed. The loss of a ‘green lung’ will have environmental and health consequences which will have a detrimental impact on quality of life. Development should be directed towards brownfield sites of which there are many in the local area. The site is referred to in some objections as Greenbelt. The site is used to play on and for dog walking. The loss of trees on site is unacceptable.
Design Three storey houses are out of keeping with the character of the area. There are too many houses on the site, the site is over developed. As a result the development does not respect the surrounding context as the adjacent development has large detached dwellings, unlike this scheme with small semi-detached properties. There is no variety in the proposed house types, brickwork or roofs. The scheme is poorly designed to maximise developer’s profits contrary to UDP policy DES1.
Crime 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. Home insurance has increased in cost. There have been crime issues on the Worsley Fold estate with occupiers of the affordable units.
Highways/Accessibility The scheme will generate 418 cars, two per household at least, and this will significantly increase traffic in the area and on local roads. The scheme is contrary to UDP policy A10. Residents in the adjacent development have to queue to leave their estate. The traffic generation needs to be considered in the context of the existing over capacity highway network and not considered in isolation. Hilton Lane 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 along Hilton Lane and the surrounding area is horrendous, unable to cope and at breaking point. It is taking hours to travel a few miles along the local roads making journey times unacceptable. This impacts on people’s quality of life and enjoyment of their home Traffic congestion is compounded further during instances of bad weather and when there are issues with the wider motorway network. Traffic in the area will be made worse by other committed developments and the traffic impact will be far reaching to the East Lancs Road, Newearth Road, Leigh Road, Park Road, Walkden Road, Kingsway and Broadway and further afield into Walkden, Worsley, Ellenbrook and Little Hulton.
Page 13 Residents along Hilton Lane are struggling to access their driveways and do not want queuing traffic along Hilton Lane in front of their houses. The footpath outside the site is very narrow. The traffic is too busy and dangerous to consider using a bike. The volume of traffic will make it hazardous for school children attending Harrop Fold High School and the new school proposed on St Georges school site. The recent housing developments have increase people in the areas and therefore there are more people and young children crossing Hilton Lane for access to schools and parks. The poor public transport services force people into the cars and people want to continue to use their cars. The development should not be approved until public transport infrastructure has been vastly approved. The Councils focus should be on maintaining roads and creating alternative transport routes and investing in public transport. Public transport mainly goes into Manchester routes. There are no direct services to Salford Quays. And if you want to travel across to Manchester to towns, such as Stockport, by public transport, this takes longer than traveling in the car. There have been attacks of the loop line which makes using this route unsafe. The Travel Plan admits the area is overly congested by stating that householders should order shopping on line to avoid going out. The mini roundabout at Newearth Road and Hilton Lane is dangerous and not fit for the amount of traffic using it never mind the additional traffic proposed as part of this development. No traffic calming solutions will address an area that in infamous for long delays. Reopening St Georges School and opening of the RHS create more congestion. Access should not be taken through the existing residential estate and be maintained from Hilton Lane. There will be traffic disruption during the construction period. There is no traffic solution i.e. new road to mitigate the impact of the development The trains and the V buses are full and their timetables do not fit in with works patterns and often the train fails to stop at Walkden Station due to overcrowding The access arrangements should be independently reviewed. The development does not provide for any additional walkways. Local amenities are not within walking distances therefore this will place more reliance on the private car. The Transport Assessment (TA) states that the junction of Newearth Road and Hilton Lane is already over capacity and queues are likely which is not acceptable. The timings of the TA are devious and the data is out of date, dating back to 2016, and based on information collected outside peak hours. The traffic measurement tools that counted traffic for the TA were placed in a position under the bridge so as not to account for traffic movement turning right out of the Hilton Lane The road safety data is old and does not include data since the Worsley Fold development was occupied. 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. The TA refers to St Georges RC High School which is closed. Distances in the TA are taken from the site entrance so will be further for those who live towards the rear of the development. The mitigation package will not increase capacity on the train. 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 road access is too close to the entrance of the adjacent new housing development and an additional access is proposed for the units on for former Burgess Farm. Therefore there will be three site entrances in short distance which is not safe. The additional traffic calming along Hilton Lane will make the route less desirable for cyclists. Provision of buses is pointless as the type of residents attracted to the development will not use them. The development will increase traffic at a busy roundabout with no pedestrian crossings therefore will impact on highway safety. The site access is unsafe and unsuitable as it is located on a blind bend with poor visibility under a bridge without consideration of the buttresses on the bridge. The existing traffic calming measures do not slow traffic down to 20mph. The additional traffic and complex road layout, with cars parked on street and the proximity of local schools all impact on highway safety. People have to travel to schools further afield and this is creating more traffic.
Page 14 The junction does not consider the access to the public right of way (PROW) 4m from the proposed access, the proximity of the two junctions with the PROW in-between is unsafe and does not create an attractive pedestrian environment. Road surfaces are not designed to accommodate the additional traffic. Lorries are getting stuck and, either with the additional traffic or the low bridge, causing traffic delays. The poor access could lead to accidents which could impact on the structure of the bridge and this could affect the railway. The planed works for M60 Junction 13 will not increase road capacity. 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. The VH2 bus route being subsidized is empty and serves little purpose to the local community. Monies should be redirected to more effective means of reducing traffic. There is a history of traffic accidents along Hilton Lane. Hilton Lane only has one pedestrian crossing point. There is no local Centre within walking distance of this site and as such there will be a reliance on the car. Two car parking spaces per dwelling does not encourage sustainable modes of transport.
Need for the development There is no need for new housing. Salford has an oversupply of new housing; which exceeds their five year supply, so why are further developments required? There are houses for sale in the area therefore why are more houses needed? 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. 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. This area has already provided more than sufficient land for housing over recent years.
Planning Obligations/Affordable Housing The affordable dwellings within the development are not ‘pepper potted’. 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. All the affordable units should be located together close to the railway line. There are no affordable units at Bellway’s site in Boothstown. Affordable homes should be built on the site for Salfordians. S106 monies will be directed towards Little Hulton. S106 contributions should not be allowed to be used to buy their way out of a problem.
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. There has already been major disruption with the building works on the Bloor and Redrow development. The noise/disturbance and dust from the construction period will impact on residential amenity. Increase in traffic will cause more damage to the environment. 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. Building more houses goes against the Councils clean air strategy. The additional and slow moving traffic will cause air pollution. The traffic congestion and noise from this along Hilton Lane impacts on the amenity of those who live along Hilton Lane. Traffic and the pollution it causes is impacting upon asthma sufferers There will be an increase in litter. The loss of greenspace will also impact on air quality as the greenspace displace carbon dioxide.
Page 15 The size of the dwelling will have an overbearing impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. 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. This is made worse by land on 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. The sustainable checklist does not answer the question regarding achieving BRE green guide rating D. The development goes against the Council’s ‘green tax’
Ecology Wildlife is struggling for food and water this will become more scarce if the site is developed. The development will impact on local wildlife, flora and fauna; specifically birds of prey (barn owl) as they use the open space provided by the fields for hunting, hedgehogs, deer, birds, cats, swallows, bats, kestrels, hawks, small rodents, cats, foxes, rabbits, frogs, toads insects and great crested newts, butterflies and moths. The wildlife uses the field and the brook. Wildlife should be protected. Wildlife cannot settle as all their greenspace is being developed. The scheme is contrary to UDP policies EN8 and EN9. The ecology report is not up to date, as it does not reference owls on the site.
Flood Risk and Drainage The site is not being drained sustainably and the reason for this is due to cost. The planning application acknowledges that the proposals are likely to increase flood risk elsewhere The disposal of foul sewage is stated as unknown The drainage proposals are contrary to the NPPG.
Impact on Services The area cannot cope with more people. 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. The growth in services have not matched growth in house building Local services, for example doctors, dentists, hospitals, emergency services, health and wellbeing services, nursery places, primary and high schools are over stretched by the current level of development in the area and this will be worsened by the provision of more housing. People are not getting their choice of schools as they are over-subscribed. Local children are having to travel to schools outside their local area (often by car) 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. The over stretched services are impacting on the life of people within Salford.
Other The revised scheme fails to address concerns of local residents. The application has been refused previously by the Council. The new application has no meaningful change. The scheme has no benefit to the local community. The applicant/developer has not undertaken any community engagement. The council have a vested interest in approving a planning application on this site as it is within their ownership. Allowing this development will show that the Council disrespects the views of local residents. Planning approval is a done deal and this can been seen through the discussions on drainage. The council should set aside its obvious financial gain through New Homes Bonus and reject the application. 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. Bellway will be subject to leasehold agreements.
Page 16 Bellway have been exposed on numerous occasions over fire safety issues. 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 plans for the proposed field. People making the planning decisions do not live in the local area and therefore do not understand the issues local residents face. Bellway’s statement that the ‘application should be approved to avoid further costs being expended from the public domain through the appeal process’ is a joke. The web-link on the letter to residents notifying them of the application links to a page which is not found. The decision notice for the application 18/72845/FUL is quoted ‘The proposal would not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area nor does it comply with the development plan and therefore does not comprise sustainable development. There were no amendments to the scheme, or conditions which could reasonably have been imposed, which could have made the development acceptable and it was therefore not possible to approve the application. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraph 38 of the NPPF’. Water pressure is reduced at times and this may get worse with additional households.
Consultations
Design For Security - No comments received to date
Air Quality, Noise and 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 - The Written Scheme of Investigation is acceptable and therefore subject to a condition securing the works proposed in the WSI, GMAAS have no objection to the scheme.
Greater Manchester Ecological Unit - Raise no objection to the proposal subject to ensuring the development is carried out in accordance with the method statements for Great Crested Newts and Himalayan Balsam and with the Landscape Creation and Management Plan.
The Open Spaces Society - No comments received to date
Peak and Northern Footpaths Society – Note that if planning permission is granted that this does not entitle developers to obstruct a public right of way. The use of an existing footpath, bridleway or restricted byway as a vehicular access to the site would be an offence unless the applicant has a private vehicular right.
Ramblers Association (Manchester Area) – Note that the footpath infrastructure around the site is not shown comprehensively and request to see how paths W135 and W136 will be integrated into the layout. They request that access to W 135 from Hilton Lane be improved and signposted and not simply be demoted into a footpath adjacent to the proposed road into the new estate. They also ask a question about the nature park.
Network Rail (LNW) – No objection, more detail is set out in the officer report.
Sport England – Have no objection to this application as it will secure a contribution of £170,570 towards improvements at Wharton Playing Fields pitches and changing rooms. The scheme therefore meets the requirements of para 97 of the NPPF and Exception E4 of Sport England’s adopted Playing Fields Policy.
Page 17 Planning Policy
Development Plan Policy
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.
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.
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 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 18 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 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.
Page 19 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
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.
Page 20 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.
Greater Manchester Spatial Framework Draft 2019 (“GMSF”) and the Revised Draft Local Plan 2019
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework Draft 2019 (“GMSF”) and the Revised Draft Local Plan 2019 were subject to public consultation until 18th March and 22nd March 2019 respectively. 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.
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.
It is not considered that there are any local finance considerations that are material to the application.
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.
Page 21 The site is allocated in the Revised Draft Local Plan for circa 200 houses (reference H9/6). At this point in time 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.
In Salford’s 2019 to 2037 Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) the site has been discounted as being developable, given that the previous planning application was refused planning permission on highways grounds in July 2019. The HELAA states that the decision to discount the site was based on the evidence currently available. Therefore the conclusion of the HELAA is that the site is not considered to be suitable for new housing and no yield has been assumed as part of this assessment.
Whilst the status of the site has changed in the HELAA this should have no bearing on how this application is determined. The application should be considered on its planning merits. In the previous application the principle of developing the site for residential development was considered to be acceptable and as such did not form a reason for refusal. Subject to the highway impacts of the development being appropriately mitigated to overcome the previous reason for refusal and the development being consistent with other policies of the UDP there is no reason why the site cannot be developed for residential use.
Neighbouring residents have questioned why the development is required as Salford has a 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 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
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 124 x three bed and 85 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 onto 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 these plots will be visible when traveling along 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. This is supported as this arrangement will promote natural surveillance of the streets and discourage crime. Also, where possible, gardens have been positioned back to back to increase security.
Page 22 It is considered that the sizes of the proposed plots are appropriate and are at a comparable density to the adjacent development. All dwellings will 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 on-site 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 and Ramblers Association are keen for the scheme to include the provision of pedestrian connections from the site to the public footpaths which bound the site. These connections 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 will 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. A condition will therefore be recommended to secure these routes, where practically possible. Any works required to facilitate the footpaths outside the redline boundary of the site; will be funded through the public realm S106 contribution.
The Crime Impact Statement highlights that access to the public footpaths would compromise the security of the development, allowing criminal legitimate access. Whilst this is acknowledged, given the low boundary treatment/hedgerow that exists around the perimeter of the site, it is considered that access could easily be obtained, without the footpaths being in place. The site has been designed so that all the boundaries of the site, with the exception of the boundary along 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. 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 in the vicinity of the development and a large number of two and a half storey properties. It is therefore considered that three storey dwellings would not be out of character and would 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
Page 23 bay windows, front projecting gables and dormer windows. Dwellings located on corner plots have been designed to be dual fronted.
In order to ensure that the facing materials are of the highest quality and respect the context of the immediate area, a condition requiring approval of facing materials is recommended.
Highways
Background –
A Transport Assessment (TA), Transport Note (TN) and Travel Plan (TP) have been submitted in support of this planning application. For the avoidance of doubt these documents are the same which were submitted under the previous application. In the previous application it was confirmed that the package of documents provided up to date travel modeling infromation to enable a full assessment to be made of the 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 considered to be 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 with tactile paving on the proposed site access arm, this new access 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 speed cushions 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 £240,000 to fund a highway infrastructure improvement scheme to improve the pedestrian / cycle facilities at the Newearth Road / Hilton Road mini roundabout and £200,000 to deliver traffic calming/road safety scheme on Hilton Lane to improve the perception of safety and encourage trips on foot.
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 earlier in this report, the scheme will facilitate where practical, access from the development onto these footpaths, which will improve accessibility to the public footpath network and the wider area. The £150,000 secured by S106 for public realm will be directed towards providing these connections and also to improvements to 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.
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 £10,000 money to be directed towards improvements to cycle parking at Walkden Train Station.
In summary, contribution towards pedestrian and cycle infrastructure improvements to provide 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.
Traffic Generation –
Page 24 The latest surveys have proved that traffic growth in this area has not been to the extent assumed within the Transport Assessment (TA) 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 -
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 TA 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 (TN) 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 TA which was based on growth historic (2016) survey data.
The Burgess Way/ Hilton Lane survey, undertaken in February 2019, enables a comparison of the assumed demand for the proposed development contained within the TA (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 TN.
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 TA 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 TN 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.
Page 25 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 TN.
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) 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)
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 TN. For clarification, the growthed 2014 survey data and original trip generation assumptions, which are higher than those in the TN, 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
Page 26 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 TA 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 TN to operate over capacity in PM peak at present.
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 TN 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 TN, 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 S106 highway package includes:
Page 27 £240,000 - To deliver pedestrian connections and safety improvements at the Hilton Lane/ Newearth Road roundabout. £200,000 - To deliver a traffic calming/ road safety scheme on Hilton Lane to improve the perception of safety and encourage trips on foot. £150,000 - Public Realm improvements towards either the loop line, local PRoW plus future maintenance of PRoW 135 and 136. £10,000 - Contribution towards cycle parking facilities at Walkden Train station.
In conclusion, the Local Highway Authority remains of the opinion, that the information submitted by the applicant is up to date and robust. The percentage increase in traffic through the junction, as a result of the development, is predicted to be low and there is no allowance made within these figures for reductions in car use resulting from the agreed highway mitigation package. The modelling approach adopted is thought to over- estimate the traffic passing through the junction at certain times within the peak. It is acknowledged that at most times of the day the junction will operate within capacity. As such the increase in traffic, as a percentage change, cannot be considered ‘severe,’ in accordance with the NPPF.
Following the refusal of the previous application on the grounds that the development would increase traffic at the already over-capacity min-roundabout at the junction of Hilton Lane and Newearth Road resulting in increased queuing and delays, the council commissioned an independent review of the TA and TN submitted with the previous application. This independent review concluded that it would be difficult to demonstrate that ‘the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’ which is the test set out in NPPF paragraph 109.
In being mindful that 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. In regard to this it is considered the agreed mitigation package, which totals £600,000, is reasonable in scale to mitigate the impact the development is likely to have on the highway network. It is therefore considered that the development complies with the requirements of UDP policies A2 and A8 and the NPPF.
Site Access -
The development will 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 new junction incorporates traffic calming features in the form of a raised junction table.
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 by Highway Officers 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 should reduce. It is noted that consideration has also been given to the proposed site access, together with that for the Bloor/Redrow development and the proposed access for the redevelopment of the Burgess Farm house.
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.
The S106 package will include £200,000 to deliver a traffic calming/road safety scheme on Hilton Lane to improve the perception of safety and encourage trips on foot. The intention will be to design a traffic calming/road safety scheme with input from local residents to ensure that it addresses the main concerns and assists pedestrian movements on the most desirable routes.
Internal Layout and Parking Provision -
Page 28 The proposed layout has been considered by Urban Vision’s Highway Adoption Manager and it is considered that the proposed layout is acceptable in principle in terms of its design and layout. These matters will however be considered in detail via the S38 process.
The scheme will provide each dwelling with 2 off street parking spaces, either on private drives or within shared car parks. UDP policy A10 indicates that development with more than 1.5 off- street parking spaces per dwelling or unit of accommodation, averaged over the city area, is unlikely to be regarded as sustainable. However, the proposed dwellings comprise a mix of larger sized units and therefore it is anticipated that owners of these properties may own more than one vehicle per household. The quantum of off road parking provision will help to reduce the number of vehicles which are parked on the street. It is also noted that the car parking within the adjacent housing development provides for off road car parking in excess of the quantum as specified in policy A10. It is therefore considered that it would be difficult to justify refusal of the application on these grounds.
Operation of the railway
Network Rail has been consulted on the planning application. They have requested that all surface and foul waters are directed away from the railway and that the proposal will not impact upon the adjacent railway and the culvert under the railway. The City’s drainage engineer has confirmed that the drainage scheme submitted meets the requirements as set out by Network Rail to ensure that drainage will not have an impact upon the operation of the railway. It has been 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.
The scheme would maintain over 3m between built structures and the boundary of the railway line. Final land levels will be agreed by condition, which will be discharged in consultation with Network Rail. In addition, a Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS) condition is recommended which will agree measures to protect the operation and integrity of operational railway and Network Rail land. In respect of noise and vibration from the railway line, officers in the Environment Team have confirmed these matters have been given due consideration.
With the imposition of these conditions it is considered that the development will protect the railway in accordance with UDP policy A4.
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’) will 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
Page 29 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 shrub, hedge and trees and made comments in respect of wildflower planting.
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. Soft landscaped areas help to break up the dominance of car parking across the site which is supported. The landscaping scheme also addresses concerns about the visual impact of having the access road into the development so close to Semmington View.
It is considered that a comprehensive landscape scheme can be achieved on the site which also provides suitable ecology mitigation, however more work is required and therefore a condition is recommended. With the imposition of this condition is it 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. A 3m acoustic fence is also proposed along part of the northern boundary of the site. 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 designed 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 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
Page 30 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.
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.
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) a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) for the proposed archaeological works on site has been submitted with the application. The Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service (GMAAS) have confirmed that they are satisfied that the DBA and WSI are 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. 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 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, 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. 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, a condition is recommended to ensure the development is undertaken in accordance with the Reasonable Avoidance measures. GMEU consider that the adjacent SBI will be afforded protection by establishing a landscape buffer zone at the western boundary of the built development.
The site is identified as a wildlife corridor in the UDP, the scheme has been designed to create semi-natural greenspace around the eastern and southern boundaries. In addition the applicant has provided a suite of landscape plans which are accompanied by a Landscape Creation and Management Plan, which are accepted by GMEU. GMEU consider that 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 conclude 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.
Page 31 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 light of the amended layout, the opportunities on site for landscaping creation and management and the off- site works GMEU support the application. However, it is noted that there are issues with the proposed landscape scheme as discussed earlier in the report. Given the landscaping is key to successfully mitigating the ecology impacts of the scheme, conditions for landscaping and habitat creation are recommended to ensure consistency.
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. The applicants have provided a Himalayan Balsam Method Statement. GMEU have recommended a condition to ensure the development is undertaken in strict accordance with this statement.
Bird Nesting –
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 Burgess 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.
Page 32 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.
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 improvements to pedestrian and cycle 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.
Page 33 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.
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 and affordable housing.
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 made a commitment 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.
Page 34 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 package is set out in the highways section of this report and summarised below:
£240,000 - To deliver pedestrian connections and safety improvements at the Hilton Lane/ Newearth Road roundabout £200,000 - To deliver a traffic calming/road safety scheme on Hilton Lane to improve the perception of safety and encourage trips on foot £10,000 - Towards cycle parking facilities at Walkden train station.
The most notable change to the S106 package from that which was presented to member in the previous refused application is the withdrawal of the funding towards Public Transport improvements in favour of measures to encourage walking and cycling from the site.
When the previous refused application came before panel £48,000 was sought for the improvements to the Hilton Lane/ Newearth Road roundabout. At that time it was envisaged that the remaining monies to complete this work to the roundabout were being secured through another means of funding. However this source of funding has fallen away therefore the applicant has agreed to redirect monies previously directed towards the bus service improvements to cover the costs for the entire works which total £240,000.
The remaining monies from the previous application allocated to bus service improvements and traffic calming measures together with an addition sum of £107,120 have been pooled together to form a contribution of £200,000 towards promoting modal shift and encourage more sustainable modes of transport.
Given the objections from members of the public at planning panel for the previous application it was suggested that the perception locally is that Hilton Lane is unsafe, or at best not conducive to facilitating these active modes of travel. Therefore it is proposed to allocate the £200,000 to the design and implementation of a traffic calming/ safety scheme along Hilton Lane
No detailed proposal is available at this time as it is intended that a scheme be designed following a detailed corridor study which is intended to include public consultation, to help inform what the current issues and what measures and interventions are favoured. It is considered that a comprehensive scheme could be delivered for this sum of money. Measures likely to be explored are the introduction of additional crossing points (potentially raised and signal controlled), the replacement of speed cushion with humps, improved street lighting, lane narrowing, driver feedback signs, tactile paving, dropped kerbs, etc.
Whilst the provision of a bus service has fallen away, it is appreciated that such a contribution could equally help to promote modal shift. Officers have explored what £200,000 would look like in terms of a bus service. Examples include the introduction of an additional bus into the schedule of the existing service 29 timetable to make it a half hourly service. It is expected that this could be funded for a period of 3 years; or seek extension of the Monday to Friday peak additional journeys on the on-highway section of the L – S – M Busway, which operate as route V4. The infrastructure team has confirmed that these are examples and would need further discussion and agreement with the operators / TfGM. Therefore, these are not a given and may not be deliverable. In light of this the council’s preference is to achieve modal shift through improving the traffic calming measures along Hilton Lane which will improve the cycle and pedestrian environment around the development. Such measures will also have a lasting impact as once implemented will remain in situ unlike the bus which is only funded for a period of time. However, should the planning panel disagree with officers then directing the monies towards the bus is also considered to help mitigate the traffic impacts of the development.
As per the previous refused application, the monies for cycle parking at Walkden Station remains the same and will be pooled towards with other S106 monies that have not yet been spent and potentially other contributions including grant funding from 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 35 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.
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 objection regarding the link being broken in the notification letter is noted, this has been amended within the letter sent out.
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. The comment that the affordable housing offer has been agreed with the Council is not an indication 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. As are direct comments about Bellway in respect of fire safety and leasehold agreements.
Colleagues in the council’s Education team have confirmed that the playing fields on this site have been declared surplus to education use. Should the St George's site on Parsonage Drive be retained for education use then this will not include the sports pitches.
Page 36 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 anti- social behavior.
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:
£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. £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. £240,000 Highways contribution – To deliver pedestrian connections and safety improvements at the Hilton Lane/ Newearth Road roundabout £200,000 Highways contribution – To deliver a traffic calming/ road safety scheme on Hilton Lane to improve the perception of safety and encourage trips on foot £150,000 - Public Realm contribution – Improvements towards either the loop line, local Public Rights of Ways (PRoW) plus future maintenance of PRoW 135 and 136 £10,000 – Walkden Train Station contribution – towards cycle parking facilities at Walkden train station. £7,000 Ecology contribution – towards habitat creation work to support the butterfly population at Blackleach Country Park. 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:
Redline Plan SD7202NE Planning Layout BHM091/PL01 Rev AG Hilton Lane, House Type Range 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 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.
Page 37 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Page 38 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.
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.
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.
Page 39 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.
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.
Page 40 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 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.
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.
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].
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.
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.
Page 41 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.
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
Page 42 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
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.
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 4th September 2019 and the requirements.
14. Network rail recommend that proposals for the site should take into account the recommendations of, ‘BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction’, which needs to be applied to prevent long term damage to the health of trees on Network Rail land so that they do not become a risk to members of the public in the future.
15. As the proposal includes works which may impact the existing operational railway and in order to facilitate the above, a BAPA (Basic Asset Protection Agreement) will need to be agreed between the developer and Network Rail. The developer will be liable for all costs incurred by Network Rail in facilitating this proposal, including any railway site safety costs, possession costs, asset protection costs / presence, site visits, review and agreement of proposal documents and any buried services searches. The BAPA will be in addition to any planning consent. The applicant / developer should liaise directly with Asset Protection to set up the BAPA (form attached) and review of method statement. [email protected]
Page 43 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5b
APPLICATION No: 19/73835/FUL APPLICANT: Mr Geoffrey Buckley LOCATION: Land To The Rear Of 25 Ellesmere Avenue, Eccles, M30 9GZ PROPOSAL: Erection of one dwelling. Re-submission of 18/72790/FUL WARD: Eccles
Description of Site and Surrounding Area
The application site forms a relatively level parcel of undeveloped land historically associated with No.25 Ellesmere Avenue in Monton. The plot cannot be accessed from Ellesmere Avenue yet maintains highway entry via Monton Road to the north-eastern aspect, adjacent to an existing electricity sub-station and public footpath. The public footpath (8) runs along the western boundary, providing pedestrian access from Monton Road down towards an industrial estate along Old Wellington Road.
The site is delineated by existing residential development; namely No.97 Monton Road to the north, the Victorian semi-detached properties of Nos.25 Ellesmere Avenue and 95 Monton Road to the east, the curtilage of No.32b Ellesmere Avenue to the south and west, and public footpath 8 to the north-western boundary.
The character of the area is delineated by its historical context and derived by tree lined streets with a mixture of traditional fronting detached and semi-detached properties constructed across various eras of development in varying architectural styles. This has resulted in the site forming part of the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area.
Page 45 The application site is also covered by a group Tree Preservation Order (13) which extends across Nos. 95-97 Monton Road, No.25 Ellesmere Avenue, and partially Nos.23 (a and b) Ellesmere Avenue.
Description of Proposal
Withdrawn Application 18/72790/FUL
This application follows the withdrawal of planning application 18/72790/FUL which sought the construction of two semi-detached dwellings on the site with a shared driveway for the provision of six spaces to the front elevation accessed from Ellesmere Avenue.
Page 46 The dwellings would have been constructed in corresponding brickwork under a shared gable ended pitched roof and together measured 15m in width x 9.5m deep x 9.5m in height.
In response to this previous submission the Case Officer raised substantive concerns with the appropriateness of the development which was deemed to represent an overdevelopment of the site and detrimentally impacted upon the private amenities of No.23b Ellesmere Avenue through overbearing effect and No.97 Monton Road through a loss of light entering the main garden area to the west of the adjacent dwelling house. It was also questioned as to whether the principle of two semi-detached properties on the site would have been acceptable given corresponding built forms of this scale within the surrounding area face directly onto the street.
Following the withdrawal of the application informal pre-application advice was given in which the principle of a single two storey detached dwelling house was discussed.
The Proposal
This application now seeks permission for the construction of a contemporary two and half storey detached dwelling house with attached double garage measuring 11.7m in width x 7.3m in depth (14.5m including attached single storey garage) x 8.9m in height. The property shall be constructed in traditional facing brickwork under a main gable ended pitched tiled roofscape with uPVC anthracite windows and door details. The exact palette of materials is yet to be finalised.
In order to facilitate the proposed development 9 trees within the group TPO are to be removed (2 Category C and 8 Category U) along the north-east and south-west boundaries of the application site.
The proposed elevations, floors plans and site plan are provided below.
Proposed Elevations
Page 47 Proposed Ground and First Floor Plans
Proposed Second Floor Plans and Property Section.
Page 48 Proposed Site Plan
Publicity
Site Notice: Non HH Within Conservation Area - Posted 13th August 2019. Reason: Planning Application in Conservation Area
Press Advert: Manchester Weekly News Salford Edition Published 15th August 2019. Reason: Planning Application in Conservation Area
Neighbour Notification
43 neighbouring occupiers have been notified of the application.
Representations
6 letters of objection have been received in response to the application’s publicity. In this regard the following summarised concerns are raised:
Principle of development The land described is in fact a back garden. This development seems to be at odds with Salford City Council’s planning policy of not allowing development in a ‘back garden' location.
Design
Page 49 The house being set back would impact the current run of properties that all align along the road, the house would impact gardens for 23A, 23B, 23 and 25 Ellesmere Avenue as what is a current view of trees and space would be fully blocked by the house. If the scheme was brought more in harmony with the adjacent building lines of properties actually on Ellesmere Avenue, it would fit in more with the surrounding area. The scheme still appears to be predominately in the rear garden aspect of the plot. According to the SPD document for Ellesmere Park, the Avenue was going to be part of the conversation area. Issues facing Ellesmere Park, section 3 sub paragraph 3.4. Loss of garden area and car parking, which this application will overrule. This application to develop in the gardens of all of the surrounding properties is still completely un- expectable. The applicant has now acquired an access road from Ellesmere Avenue by purchasing land. If the developer was to purchase enough land to develop on the build line of Ellesmere Avenue and use the parcel of land as garden (in line with the existing properties) there would no objection. The size, nature and location of the proposed development is both overbearing and not in keeping with the surrounding area of Ellesmere Avenue.
Highways With the application submission of cars entering and exiting onto Ellesmere Avenue, this would add unreasonably to an already busy dead ended road, and make the area even more hazardous for pedestrians. Parking along Ellesmere Avenue is significantly increased when there are classes ongoing at the dancing studio directly adjacent to the access drive proposed within this application. Cars park on both sides of the avenue, from the top to the bottom on evenings and weekends. Allowing this drive to exit onto the avenue would only add to the potential for a future accident to occur. This Ave. is already very busy due to the extra properties having been built and the cars being parked from the surrounding area. A neighbouring properties garden wall has already been demolished three times, the last one by a builders supply lorry last November. The amount of construction traffic is obviously going to be horrendous. Wouldn't the entrance onto Monton Road be a better proposition where the entrance already exists? Driveway would be opposite the proposed entrance and exit of an adjacent property. The Avenue was never intended for this.
Amenity The total disruption to our lives on Ellesmere Avenue where one neighbour has lived for years is unnecessary. The sight lines shown do not pick up the rear bedrooms and windows on the side elevation of No.23, these would be directly overlooked. It is noted that the recently constructed property to the other side of the plot has no rear windows to ensure no overlooking so that would appear to be a precedent now not being followed. It was assumed that given the established properties on Ellesmere Avenue have large gardens and good views and sunlight that this section of land – which is overlooked from all directions with existing neighbouring properties on Monton Road, Ellesmere Avenue and Ellesmere Green - would not be developed on as there had been previous planning permission applications turned down. It would mean that the front elevation of the house would directly look into a number of windows on neighbouring properties.
Trees The plans reference tree T16 and T13 – both trees are actually within the border of No.23 and provide a block to the flats behind, if removed it would open up views for all of the flats to the back into a neighbouring property. On the basis tree T16 is within No.23’s fence line and the neighbour would not allow this to be removed. Regarding the mature trees on this plot which are part of the aesthetics of the Avenue. These trees originally had TPOs put on them, but all of a sudden these have been lifted/removed.
Miscellaneous Look at the dreadful house the applicant built on the adjacent land on Monton Road. The application is not to enhance the area but to make money.
Page 50 The plans again seem to focus on maximising the size of what can be built on the plot with no real concern for overlooking houses on Ellesmere Avenue nor what the plot probably suits in the local area Ellesmere Avenue is a quiet road with a number of senior citizens. If the property that was developed by the same builder at 95 Monton Road included this land as gardens for 2-3 properties instead of the already granted and developed individual property with minimal garden and parking then he would have the same amount of properties which ran to an existing build line. A neighbouring occupier was told that a parcel of land which didn't run to an existing build line and is overlooked from all angles would not be developed on.
Relevant Site History
18/72790/FUL - Erection of 2 no dwellings - Application Withdrawn - 12 July 2019
5/49912/TPO - Crown raise to 5m one sycamore (1), remove limb overhanging the road from one maple and formatively prune accordingly one maple (T2) - Approve - 28 February 2005
Consultations
Highways – No objection subject to a condition requesting that the applicant submit a Construction Management Statement/Plan to ensure no increase in risk to pedestrians and road users will occur during the construction period. In addition, the following informatives are recommended for attachment: With regards to site access boundary treatment it is recommended any non-permeable boundary wall must not be more than 0.6m high and any higher boundary must be permeable in the form of decorative guard railing. The works on the adopted highway will be delivered by an s171 agreement and Greater Manchester Roads Activities Permit Scheme (GMRAPS). The applicant should request the LHA 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 construction vehicles of the development and ensure the works on the adopted highway are properly implemented. The applicant 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 works to be undertaken adjacent to any utility services, this includes diverting and protecting of services. Regarding the 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
Senior Drainage Engineer – No objection. Recommended informative highlighting that a public sewer/drain passes through the site and therefore the applicant should contact United Utilities.
Greater Manchester Ecological Unit – No objection subject to conditions requesting that: No removal of or works to any trees shall take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive; Prior to the commencement of development an invasive non-native species protocol shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority given the discovery of Japanese Knotweed; A scheme for biodiversity enhancement measures is submitted.
Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Land – No objection subject to conditions requesting: Noise generative works are restricted; Prior to the commencement of the development a Phase 2 Site Investigation Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should unacceptable risks be identified a land remediation strategy shall be submitted and implemented in accordance with the approved details; A verification report is submitted confirming that al remedial works have been undertaken on site.
Page 51 Planning Policy
Development Plan Policy
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 Developments 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 CH3 - Works Within Conservation Areas This policy states that work in conservation areas will only be permitted where it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. Consideration will be given to the extent that the proposal i) retains or improves features that contribute to the character or appearance of the conservation area ii) are of a high standard of design iii) retains mature trees iv) secures environmental improvements and enhancements v) protects views into an out of the conservation area.
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 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 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.
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 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 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.
Page 52 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.
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 ST15 - Historic Environmental This policy states that historic and cultural assets that contribute to the character of the city will be preserved and wherever possible and appropriate, enhanced.
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: i. the importance of the development plainly outweighs the nature conservation and amenity value of the landscape feature; and ii. 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 EN13 – Protected Trees This policy states that Development that would result in the unacceptable loss of, or damage to, protected trees will not be permitted. Where the loss of trees is considered acceptable, adequate replacement provision will be required.
Other Material Planning Considerations
National Planning Policy
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019
Local Planning Policy
Supplementary Planning Document - Ellesmere Park The policy document is designed to raise awareness of the need for and value of good design in Ellesmere Park, and how it can be achieved for the benefit of all involved.
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 - 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 - 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.
It is not considered that there are any local finance considerations that are material to the application
Page 53 The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework Draft 2019 (“GMSF”) and the Revised Draft Local Plan 2019 were subject to public consultation until 18th March and 22nd March 2019 respectively. 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.
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
The main considerations in the determination of this application include: Principle of development; i) Mix, type and density Impact upon the character and appearance of the area Trees and ecology; Amenity; Highways and parking; Drainage and flood risk; Land contamination; and Sustainability
Principle of development
Paragraph 7 of the NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable forms of development with Paragraph 117 explaining that ‘decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.’ This includes the promotion and support of development of under-utilised sites, especially if this would help to meet identified needs for housing.
For the purposes of this application the site is considered to represent Greenfield land owning to its revocation within the definition of previously developed land within Appendix 2 of the NPPF (2019). The framework does not advocate a sequential approach whereby development of previously developed land is prioritised over Greenfield land and therefore attention should be given to the general design policies of the development plan and the potential impact that any such development would have upon the character and appearance of the area or the amenities of the local environment.
In this regard the application site is located within Sub-Area 3 of the Ellesmere Park conservation area whereby the SPD recognizes that given the number of later houses of varying styles, often replacing older properties as infill development, the area presents a more mixed feel. Notwithstanding this, it is requested that development retain the spaciousness and relatively low density of development.
In referencing sustainability, the site lies within close proximity to both Eccles Town Centre and Monton Neighbourhood Centre, in addition to other local services and facilities within the local area enhances the sustainability of the site for redevelopment opportunities. As such, it is considered that the principle of residential development on the site is acceptable subject to other material considerations detailed within the following sections of this report.
Page 54 i) Mix, type and density
Paragraph 59 of the NPPF details the Government’s objective to significantly boosting the supply of homes to meet the needs of groups with specific housing requirements.
UDP Policy H1 seeks to ensure that new housing developments are built at an appropriate density of no less than 30 dwellings per hectare throughout the city and should contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings in terms of size, type, tenure and affordability. It goes on to further state that in determining whether the proposed mix and density of dwellings on a site is appropriate and acceptable, regard will be had to criteria A to H which enforces the importance of constructing a mix of dwellings which respect the physical characteristics of the site and remain accessible to local services and amenities.
Policy H1 of the UDP has been supplemented by policies in the adopted Housing Planning Guidance.
Policy HOU1 of the Housing Planning Guidance explains that within West Salford the large majority of dwellings should be in the form of houses rather than apartments. The reasoned justification for this requirement is to protect the existing character and associated density of residential development in the area.
Policy HOU2 goes further in requesting that the majority of new houses should have at-least three bedrooms.
The proposal seeks the construction of a four/five bedroomed dwelling house and thus is considered to meet the requirements of Policies HOU1 and HOU2 of the Planning Guidance and paragraph 59 of the NPPF. In referencing Policy H1, the proposed density complies with the provisions of criteria A-H to warrant the principle acceptability of the scheme.
Impact upon the character and appearance of the area
Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that when considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a conservation area, “special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of that area”. The meaning of “preservation” is taken to be the avoidance of harm.
The NPPF (February 2019) recognises that all heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be “conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations” (NPPF para 184).
Paragraph 193 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation with greater weight given, the more important the asset.
Paragraph 194 then continues to say that any harm to, or loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset should require “clear and convincing justification”.
Paragraph 195 states that where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, permission should be refused unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss of significance is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. Paragraph 196 states that where a proposal leads to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate securing its optimum viable use.
At a local level, Policy CH3 of the UDP requires development to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area through the protection of features which contribute towards the designated heritage asset.
Policy CH3 is supplemented by Policies DES1 and H1 of the UDP which require that development responds to its physical context and respects the positive character of the local area in which it is situated whilst contributing towards local identity and distinctiveness.
In addition to the above, the Ellesmere Park SPD remains a material consideration in the determination of this application.
Page 55 The application site is located within sub-area 3 of the Ellesmere Park conservation area as defined by the SPD. The relevant text acknowledges that there are a number of later houses of varying styles on infill developments which give the area “a more mixed feel”. In contextual terms however the site, nor its surroundings, is recognized within Policy 3 of the SPD as a gateway or entry point which strengthens the identity of the area and responds to its prominent location.
Policy 5 outlines that development should retain the spacious character of the area through retaining the visual breaks between buildings, the creation and retention of amenity space and the assurances that development is sympathetic in terms of scale, massing and site coverage. Additionally, it is requested that development should typically reflect the strong building lines reflective of the street-scene.
It is acknowledged that the scheme does not strictly conform to Policy 5 given the proposals set back position from the public highway. Notwithstanding this, consideration must be given to the site’s unique position on the peripheries of the conservation area whereby the land is of a sufficient acreage to accommodate a dwelling of the size proposed which would include sizeable private amenity space (Policy 8) without impacting upon the openness and permeability of the site from public vantage points along Monton Road or Ellesmere Avenue and the visual breaks this creates.
In referencing scale and massing the proposal remains proportionate to the surrounding built form with a reduced ridge height to further moderate its prominence when viewed in context with neighbouring residential properties. This is evidenced in the table detailed below which demonstrates that the development is subordinately scaled and clearly not of a scale which would otherwise dominate the street-scene:
Eaves Height (m) Ridge Height (m)
Nos. 95 and 25 8.0 -10.0 10.5 -12.5 Nos. 23 a and b 6.2 10.8 No.97 6.5 10.1 Proposal 5.0 8.7
The development is also sympathetically designed with a traditional built form which incorporates contemporary fenestration details in order to enhance the aesthetics of the scheme and integrate more appropriately within the conservation area. Whilst the material palette has not been finalized, it is understood that red multi-brick and a grey reconstituted tiled are to be used. This corresponds with the prevailing character of the area in accordance with Policy 6 subject to a condition attached to any grant of permission requesting that such details are submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any above ground works taking place.
In respect to landscaping, a new vehicular access is to be created onto Ellesmere Avenue with car parking set far back into the application site. The access will remove a small section of hedgerow however would not detrimentally harm the aesthetics of the road given the relatively small amount of hardstanding visible and the degree of shrubbery being retained in compliance with Policy 7.
Having regard to trees, three Norway Maples (T4, T5, and T6) will be removed within close proximity of Ellesmere Avenue. However, it has been confirmed that to the rear all notable trees shall be retained and thus the verdant characteristics of the site from the public footpath and Monton Road will be preserved. It is however considered reasonably necessary to attach a condition requesting the submission of a comprehensive landscaping plan which incorporates the retained trees and also provides replacement tree planting for those to be felled within close proximity of Ellesmere Avenue (T4, T5, and T6) in accordance with Policy 10 of the SPD.
The bin storage area will be located next to the proposed dwelling (as outlined in the proposed site layout plan) and therefore would not be considered visually obtrusive in accordance with the provisions of Policy 11.
Overall, it is considered that the proposed development would have a neutral impact upon the significance of the designated heritage asset and through appropriate landscaping works and a sympathetic palette of corresponding materials has the ability to contribute towards the local identity and distinctiveness of the area. As such, the proposal is considered to comply with policies DES1 and CH3 of the UDP, the Ellesmere Park SPD and the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF (2019).
Page 56 Trees and Ecology
A BS 5837 Arboriculture Report has been submitted as a means of satisfying policy TD1 of the Trees and Development Supplementary Planning Document (2006). The report acknowledges the blanket TPO (13) and describes the overall number and quality of the trees and hedges across the application site. It is also recognized that the plot is positioned on the peripheries of the Ellesmere Park Conservation Area whereby great weight is given to the protection of existing mature trees and landscaping, where practicable (Policy 10 of the SPD)
In response the Council’s Arboricultural Advisor considers the report to contain a fair and accurate appraisal of the trees recorded on the site with an acknowledgement that in order to facilitate the proposed development 10 trees (2 Category C and 8 Category U) are to be removed.
For reference:
Category C trees are those of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years, or young trees with a stem diameter below 150 mm.
Category U trees are those in such a condition that they cannot realistically be retained due to: Serious, irremediable or structural defect; Showing signs of significant, immediate or irreversible decline; or Those affected by pathogens or significant health issues.
Notwithstanding the health of those trees to be lost, it is considered given the grouped amenity value that they create for the preservation and enhancement of the wider conservation area, that a tree replacement scheme is appropriate in this instance. Such a scheme shall be included within the comprehensive landscape plan requested previously within this report.
In accordance with the above the proposal is considered compliant in satisfying Policies EN12 and EN13 of the UDP, Policy TD1 of the Trees and Development SPD and the provisions of the Ellesmere Park SPD subject to the incorporation of conditions requesting that the retained trees shall be protected during construction, that a tree replacement scheme is submitted and that the development be implemented in accordance with a submitted Arboricultural Method Statement.
Having regard to ecology, the NPPF incorporates measures to conserve and enhance the natural and local environment, including 'Biodiversity and Geological Conservation'. Paragraph 175 of the NPPF requires that in determining planning applications significant harm resulting from a development should be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort compensated for; and opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged.
The application is supported by an Ecological Assessment by Tyrer Ecological Consultants Ltd whereby a daytime survey was conducted on the 5th July 2019. The results of the survey concluded that all trees to be found on site where entirely absent of features which could support the roosting of bats with no areas considered suitable for the breeding bird habitats of any Schedule 1 WCA-listed species. It was however observed that areas of Japanese Knotweed have been identified across the site which is classed as ‘invasive’ within Schedule 9 (Part II) Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981) (as amended). In this regard Natural England and DEFRA (2014) give the following advice relating to invasive plant species:
“‘You must not plant in the wild or cause certain invasive and non-native plants (all species listed under Schedule 9(Part II) WCA 1981) to grow in the wild. This can include moving contaminated soil or plant cuttings. You can be fined or sent to prison for up to 2 years.”
In light of the above the report identifies that the presence of Japanese Knotweed should be eradicated from the site and soil treated prior to the commencement of construction works to ensure the spread of the invasive species is controlled.
In the determination of this application the Greater Manchester Ecological Unit has reviewed the Ecological Assessment and agrees with its contents therein subject to conditions requesting that:
Page 57 There should be no removal of any hedgerows, trees or shrubs between 1st March and 31st August unless a competent ecological has undertaken a careful, detailed check of vegetation for active bird’s nests; A scheme for Biodiversity Enhancement Measures should be submitted in accordance with Paragraph 175 of the NPPF; and Due to the site being overcome with Japanese Knotweed a method statement for the eradication of Japanese Knotweed shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior the any commencement of works on site.
In referencing to the removal of vegetation between 1st March and 31st August inclusively, it is not the role of the planning system to replicate separate legislation and therefore an informative, rather than a condition, is recommended for attachment to any grant of planning approval advising the applicant of the stipulations outlined within the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended).
In respect to the Biodiversity Enhancement Measures and the removal of Japanese Knotweed, the attachment of such conditions is considered necessary as a means of ensuring the preservation and enhancement of the local environment in accordance with the NPPF (2019).
Amenity
Policy DES7 of the UDP states that all new development 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.
In assessing the appropriateness of development on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers the Council applies the following design principles: A minimum distance of 10.5m between a principal window of any habitable room and the common boundary facing the property – this may be reduced if an established common boundary exists; A minimum of 9m between a facing habitable room window and a single storey gable elevation; and A minimum distance of 21m between facing principal windows of habitable rooms.
No.97 Monton Road
No.97 Monton Road is positioned along the northern boundary of the application site and located between 4-5m north-east of the proposed development. In this regard the rear elevation of No.97 has been designed with no habitable room windows facing the application site, only a rear door and a landing window. Equally, the proposed development does not incorporate any windows on the side elevation with those on the first floor rear elevation closest to the common boundary comprising bathrooms and a dressing room. To this end it is not considered that the proposed development would create a loss of privacy or overbearing effect to the detriment of the neighbouring occupants.
In support of this application a shadows study has been commissioned which clearly demonstrates that the proposal would not severely impact upon the level of light entering the usable garden areas to the north-west of No.97. It is recognized that the narrow strip of curtilage between the southern building line of No.97 and the common boundary would see a reduced level of light throughout the day; however it is known that this section of garden is unused with sufficient provision afforded elsewhere to ensure the overall impact of development is neutralized.
Page 58 No.95 Monton Road and No.25 Ellesmere Avenue
No.95 No.25
No.95 Monton Road is located to the east of the application site and forms one part of a prominent Victorian semi-detached villa on the corner of Monton Road and Ellesmere Avenue.
In this regard the separation distances between the nearest habitable window on the rear of No.95 to that of the front elevation of the proposed development (first floor window to the master bedroom) is 19m. This is below the Council’s guidelines of 21m however consideration is given to the angled orientation of the proposed development to No.95 and the incorporation of the pitched roof to the attached double garage which largely obscures any direct views towards the rear elevation of the adjacent property. It is also recognized that there does not appear to be a private curtilage to the rear of No.95, with the area being open to hardstanding and inter-visibility from Monton Road. As a consequence it is considered that the relationship between the two properties is acceptable.
As confirmed by the proposed site layout plan submitted in support of this application the Council’s prescribed separation distances would be achieved (between 21-24m) between the front habitable room windows of the proposed development and those to the rear of No.25. This is further improved by the expanse of established vegetation between the two built forms which would filter any direct views.
To this end it is considered that the proposal would have an acceptable impact upon the amenities of the occupants to No.97 Monton Road.
Nos 23 a and b Ellesmere Avenue
In respect to concerns raised by residents in Nos.23 a. and b. there are no windows incorporated into the side elevation of the proposed dwelling and therefore no such overlooking would occur into the private amenity areas of those properties to warrant concerns to be raised. In respect to overbearing effect, the proposed site layout plan clearly depicts a 45 degree angle from the mid-point of the nearest ground floor habitable room window of No.23b to the furthest corner of the proposed dwelling measuring a distance of 13.5m. This is considered to be an acceptable relationship and would meet the stipulations of the Council’s Householder Extensions SPD in ensuring that the scheme will not create an oppressively overbearing effect to the detriment of the existing occupants.
Having regard to the side elevational windows serving No.23 b, these are noted to be secondary windows and located between 6-7m from the proposed access drive connecting the application site to Ellesmere Avenue. To
Page 59 this end it is considered that sufficient distance has been maintained to ensure the amenities afforded to the occupants of No.23 b are maintained which is further improved by the inclusion of a 1.8m high fence and established hedging extending along the common boundary.
Other neighbouring properties
In relation to those properties further afield, properties along Ellesmere Green, beyond the public footpath and established line of mature trees to the west are at a sufficient distance (approximately 32m) to ensure the amenities afforded to adjoining occupants are preserved.
Having regard to those properties sited along Ellesmere Avenue (Nos.7, 7a and 9), the only issue which would likely occur is headlights from vehicles existing the application site. Whilst this might be considered an annoyance, it is nonetheless only at periodic times during the day with the dwellings sufficiently set back into their respective plots (between 26-37m from the proposed entrance) to ensure the level of light pollution is controlled. This impact is also filtered by the established boundary treatments along Ellesmere Avenue.
In relation to the concerns raised by local residents in respect to noise and disturbance during construction, the Council’s Environmental Consultant, alongside the Local Highway Authority, have requested the submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan through the attachment of a condition to ensure the risks involved during the construction of the new dwelling are mitigated and the noise generative construction activities are restricted to more socially acceptable hours, namely: o Monday – Friday: 08:00 – 18:00 o Saturday: 09:00 – 14:00 o Sunday and Public No noise generative working / deliveries Holidays
Amenity for future occupants
It is considered that the amount of useable outdoor private amenity space is acceptable and level of window coverage and associated outlook is sufficient to ensure occupants have a view whilst ensuring the level of sunlight/daylight entering the properties is satisfactory.
Air Quality
The development lies on the edge of the Greater Manchester Air Quality Management Area, declared for an exceedance of the UK Limit Value of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). The main source of NO2 is road traffic from Monton Road. It is known that concentrations of NO2 reduce quickly with increasing distance from the source, and the nearest façade of this development is approximately 16m from the carriageway. As such, it is considered the new property will not be in an area exposed to levels of NO2 and therefore no mitigation is required to negate such impact.
Taking this into consideration the proposed development is considered compliant with Policies DES7 and EN17 of the UDP.
Highways and Parking
UDP Policy A8 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. Whilst policy A10 requires the 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.
Paragraph 109 of the NPPF requires that “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”.
The Council’s Highways Officer has reviewed the proposed development and considers the incorporation of a new access point and drop kerb along Ellesmere Avenue to be acceptable with adequate visibility to enable
Page 60 safe entry and egress. Additionally, the level of car parking for the provision of at least 5 cars is considered acceptable with sufficient hardstanding allowing for the maneuverability of vehicles within the site.
The applicant has annotated an area to the side elevation of the proposed development for the storage of bins. This is considered acceptable by the Highway Officer and reasonably distanced from Ellesmere Avenue to ensure accessibility to waste vehicles.
The proposal seeks the construction of one additional dwelling which is not considered to represent an intensification of use to the detriment of the highway network, nor would it result in an increase in traffic congestion to a ‘severe level’. As such, the proposal is compliant with Policy A8 of the UDP.
Drainage and Flood Risk
The NPPF provides policy guidance relating to flood risk. Paragraph 163 provides specific advice with respect to the determination of planning applications stating that local planning authorities, when determining planning applications, should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere.
Policy EN19 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.
The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 and the site is considered ‘more vulnerable’ owing to its proposed residential use. Notwithstanding this, the application does not require the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment given the application site is below 1ha in size.
In light of the above, an approved Detailed Drainage Strategy that demonstrates how the above elements and the requirements of Policy EN19 will be achieved within the developments constraints will be required for this development prior to commencement of the works. The detailed drainage strategy should consist of a written Drainage Design Statement document that explains how the drainage system(s) are proposed to work supplemented by appended calculations and drawings. Where possible/appropriate the Detailed Drainage Strategy should be supplemented with industry standard drainage design software network model files as this will greatly accelerate the approval process. Such details are required prior to commencement of works on site given the drainage issues associated with the proposed development.
Land contamination
The NPPF states that planning decisions should ensure that the proposed site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground conditions, including pollution arising from previous uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation.
The application has been assessed against UDP policy EN17 which is considered to fully accord with the provisions of NPPF.
As explained by the Council’s Environmental Consultant the site remained undeveloped until approximately 1936 when a building is shown on historic mapping until approximately 1953. Alongside this there are also identified off site former contaminative uses.
In accordance with land contamination risk the proposed end use is considered sensitive. In this regard the desk study report submitted alongside the application has assessed the potential for a pollution linkage between any identified source, and a receptor. The assessment considers there is a potential for contaminants to exist on site and recommends further investigation in the form of an intrusive investigation.
In this regard the conclusions of the report are accepted however in order 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 UDP and the NPPF a condition requesting the submission of a Phase 2 Investigations Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority alongside thereafter a verification report which validates that all remedial works undertaken on site were completed in accordance with those previously agreed.
Page 61 Subject to the incorporation of the conditions detailed above, the proposal is considered compliant with Policy EN17 of the UDP and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF.
Sustainability
The sustainability checklist submitted alongside the application states that the development will feature a number of energy efficiency measures/initiatives. These include: Thermal insulation exceeding building regulation requirements, including double glazing; Provision of photovoltaic panels; Incorporation of energy efficient measures for water consumption below 120L per person, per day; and The use of locally resourced materials where practical.
It is therefore considered that sufficient provision has been made to enhance the sustainability of the development in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF (2019).
Recommendation
Approve subject to conditions
1. The development shall be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:
Location Plan Proposed Fencing 3346:05 Site Plan Revised Scheme 3346:07 Proposed Floor Plans 3346:10 Rev D Proposed Elevations 3346:11 Rev B Proposed floor Plans 3346:14 Rev B
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3. 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.
4. 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 and a tree placement scheme 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 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
Page 62 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.
5. No development shall be started until all the retained trees within (or overhanging) the site as shown at Appendix A Tree Constraints Plan of the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement by Treestyle Consultancy have been surrounded by substantial fences. Such fences shall be erected in accordance with the fence specification depicted at Appendix E General Tree Protection Considerations of the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement by Treestyle Consultancy 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: In accordance with TD1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the Trees and Development SPD and NPPF (2019).
Reason for pre-commencement condition: In order to safeguard retained trees during the construction period.
6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement reference TreeStyle Consultancy95 Monton Road, Monton BS5837.
Reason: In accordance with TD1 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the Trees and Development SPD and NPPF (2019).
7. Prior to the commencement of development (except for demolition and enabling works) a Phase 2 Site Investigation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation shall address the nature, degree and distribution of land contamination on site and shall include an identification and assessment of the risk to receptors focusing primarily on risks to human health, groundwater and the wider environment.
Should unacceptable risks be identified the applicant shall also submit and agree with the Local Planning Authority in writing a contaminated land remediation strategy prior to commencement of development (except for demolition and enabling works) . 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.
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.
8. Pursuant to condition 7 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.
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
9. No works shall take place until a strategy of 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
Page 63 Planning Authority. The approved strategy 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.
Surface water discharge rate is restricted to 50% of the existing discharge rate or to greenfield runoff, whichever is greater, as per the user guide to the Salford City Council SFRA.
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; NPPF, Water Framework Directive and the NW River Basin Management Plan The national Planning Practice Guidance and the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) Manchester, Salford, Trafford Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) (2011) and associated technical guidance Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines (now withdrawn) 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.
10. 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; and 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.
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.
11. A scheme for the Biodiversity Enhancement Measures, as set out in section 9.0 and Appendix II of the Inspection & Assessment in Relation to Bats & Breeding Birds by Tyrer Ecological Consultants Ltd dated 17th June 2019 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development (or in accordance
Page 64 with a phasing plan which shall first be agreed in writing with the local planning authority) and shall be retained thereafter.
Reason: To create biodiversity enhancement in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 174 of the NPPF (2019).
12. Prior to the commencement of development (including ground works, vegetation clearance), an invasive non-native species protocol shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, detailing the containment, control and removal of Japanese Knotweed on site. The measures shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: In order to prevent the spread of invasive species in accordance with the NPPF (2019)
Reason for pre-commencement condition: It is essential that the containment, control and removal of Japanese Knotweed on the site is removed prior to any implementation works on the site.
13. 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.
Informatives:
1. Highways
With regards to site access boundary treatment, any non-permeable boundary wall must not be more than 0.6m high and a higher boundary must be permeable in the form of decorative guard railing.
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 applicant is to request the LHA 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 construction vehicles of the development and ensure the works on the adopted highway are properly implemented. (Please find contact detail below).
The construction of footway, carriageway and utility services must be protected. 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 engineer
Useful contacts
Dilapidation Survey:
The 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 – John Horrocks - Tel: 0161 603 4046
Page 65 2. Ecology
No removal of or works to any trees shall take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a careful, detailed check of vegetation for active birds' nests immediately before the vegetation is cleared and provided written confirmation that no birds will be harmed and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site. Any such written confirmation should be submitted to the local planning authority.
3. Land Contamination
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.
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.
4. A public sewer crosses this site and United Utilities have advised that they may not permit building over it. Advise that they will require an access strip width of six metres; three metres either side of the centre line of the sewer which is in accordance with the minimum distances specified in the current issue of "Sewers for Adoption", for maintenance or replacement. In the light of this they advise that a modification of the site layout, or a diversion of the affected public sewer at the applicant's expense, may be necessary. State that in order to establish if a sewer diversion is feasible, the applicant must discuss this at an early stage with their Developer Engineer at [email protected] as a lengthy lead in period may be required if a sewer diversion proves to be acceptable. State that deep rooted shrubs and trees should not be planted in the vicinity of the public sewer and overflow systems. Advise that the applicant can discuss any of the above with Developer Engineer, Will Harrison, by email at [email protected].
Page 66 Agenda Item 5c
APPLICATION No: 19/73934/COU APPLICANT: Mr S Eckstein LOCATION: 6 Brook Street, Swinton, M27 9PA PROPOSAL: Change of use from C3 dwelling to 10-bed HMO (House In Multiple Occupancy) (Sui Generis) WARD: Swinton North
Description of Site and Surrounding Area This application relates to 6 Brook Street, a long, narrow two-storey dwelling situated at the end of a small row of buildings, with its frontage wrapping around the corner of Brook Street. To the north, the dwelling sits at the back of the footway. To the west is a small front garden, bound by railings. A small hard standing is situated to the south for the parking of vehicles and access to the rear garden.
At present, the property is a single family dwelling and accommodates a living room, WC, dining room, kitchen, utility and play room at ground floor (the utility and play room are accessed externally within a single storey element to the side). At first floor, the dwelling accommodates three bedrooms, an office and family bathroom.
The immediate surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature with Wardley Industrial Estate to the west, on the opposite side of Sindsley Brook which runs north to south. To the east is St Charles’ RC Church and Primary School.
Description of Proposal Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the dwelling to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) featuring a living room/dining room/kitchen, 5 bedrooms, a WC and shower room at ground floor and 5 bedrooms and two shower rooms at first floor. All rooms will be single occupancy. There are minimal external alterations proposed, including the closing up of two glazed openings either side of the main access door and the removal of a section of the boundary fencing and gates to allow appropriate space and access for the parking of 5 vehicles within the curtilage. A bin storage area and a cycle parking area will also be provided.
Publicity Site Notice: Not Applicable
Page 67
$c1r5kjzt.docx Reason:
Press Advert: Not Applicable Reason:
Neighbour Notification 16 neighbouring occupiers have been notified of the application.
Representations 23 letters of representation have been received from 17 different addresses in response to the application publicity. The issues raised can be summarised as follows: Inadequate parking space provided. Increase in traffic on an already congested street, leading to highway safety concerns. Further damage to the condition of Brook Street. Questioned the type of people who would be residing in the HMO. Perceived anti-social behaviour from residents of HMOs. Decrease the value of surrounding properties. Out of character with the very quiet residential area. Increase in noise and disturbance. The ‘Sui Generis’ use would allow the property to be used as a hostel. Suggests that the property will be used as a ‘half-way house’. There will be an increase in crime rates. There will be an increase in complaints to the Council and the Police. Increase in pressure on services and public utilities. Increase in litter. Bins left on the street will further reduce parking availability. Thinks that marketing the HMO at young professionals is a smoke screen and the property will be let to people claiming benefits. Loss of privacy. States that the notification letter was misleading as it did not state the correct location of the application. Does not understand the principle of housing 10 young people in a home. There will only be one shared living/dining/kitchen. Questions whether the applicant has gained approval from the lease holder. Existing residents will experience a greater fear of crime. No. 4 and No. 6 Brook Street share a water supply affecting water pressure in the street. No. 6 Brook Street is not large enough for the proposed use. The houses on Brook Street are predominantly occupied by elderly people. Lack of pride and respect for properties with short term occupiers. The development is overdevelopment of the site and will lead to overcrowding. Insufficient neighbour notification.
An objection has also been received from Cllr Hinds who raises concern that the conversion to a HMO is inappropriate on an unadopted street, which is narrow and the road is congested due to restrictions on Moorside Road.
In response to these objections: The impact on property values is not a material planning consideration. The proposed HMO use falls within ‘Sui Generis’ – i.e. not a specific use class. Uses that are considered to be Sui Generis do not benefit from permitted development rights to change to another use. Any future changes of use will, therefore, require planning permission. The property cannot be changed to a hostel without planning permission. The applicant has signed an ownership certificate submitted with the application form to confirm that they are the owner of the property. Issues relating to the water pressure are civil matters to be resolved between the relevant property owners and United Utilities. This is not a material planning consideration. In relation to the character of the street and a majority of dwellings being occupied by elderly residents – this may not always be the case as people move on and move into the street. This is not a material planning consideration.
Page 68
$c1r5kjzt.docx In terms of neighbour notification, Article 15 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) requires the Local Planning Authority to publicise the proposal by serving notice on any adjoining owner or occupier. Each adjoining owner/occupier has been notified by letter, as have a number of wider properties in the vicinity. The Officer has checked a copy of the neighbour notification letters that have been issued and the location of the development states ‘6 Brook Street, Swinton, M27 9PA’ and so it is considered that the location is clear for neighbours to determine where the development is proposed.
The remaining issues have been addressed in the appraisal below.
Relevant Site History No relevant site history.
Consultations Highways – No objection subject to conditions.
Senior Drainage Engineer - No comments received to date
Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Land - No objection
Landscape Design - No comments received to date
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 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 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 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 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 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.
Page 69
$c1r5kjzt.docx 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 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.
Other Material Planning Considerations National Planning Policy National Planning Policy Framework
Local Planning Policy 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
Appraisal The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework Draft 2019 (“GMSF”) and the Revised Draft Local Plan 2019 were subject to public consultation until 18th March and 22nd March 2019 respectively. 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.
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.
Principle of Development The dwelling subject to this application is currently in residential use. The site is located within 1km of the boundary of Swinton Town Centre and there are a number of small commercial units in close proximity to the site on Moorside Road, including convenience stores, hair and beauty salons, hot food take aways, public house, a community hall, social club and day nursery which affords occupiers easy access to a range of goods and services.
The site is located within 400m of Swinton Train Station and a number of frequent bus services can be accessed on Moorside Road, Chorley Road to the north and the East Lancashire Road to the south. The proposal offers an opportunity to re-develop an existing dwelling which is located within an accessible and sustainable location.
Page 70
$c1r5kjzt.docx By definition, a House in Multiple Occupation provides tenanted living accommodation that is occupied by persons, as their only or main residence, who are not related and who share one or more basic amenities e.g. bathroom, kitchen, dining etc.
The council’s interactive map shows that there are 2 other mandatory licensed HMOs within a 400m radius of the application site. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposal will have an unacceptable impact by reason of the cumulative effects of the concentration of HMO uses.
Whilst the existing dwelling meets the housing needs of those requiring single family dwellings, it is not considered that the loss of the single family dwelling will have an adverse impact upon the mix of dwellings in the area, with the proposal making a contribution towards meeting the housing needs of those requiring lower cost accommodation. Salford’s anti-poverty strategy recognises that HMOs meet specific housing needs of those people requiring lower cost accommodation that would not necessarily be met by smaller terraced houses or apartments given the difference in rental values.
It is considered that the principle of introducing a HMO into this predominantly residential area is acceptable providing the development is acceptable in terms of its relationship to neighbouring residents, and its impact upon the highway network.
A number of the objections raise concern in relation to the people who will reside in the HMOs. The LPA has no control over who the future residents may be in the same way there is no control over who resides in a dwellinghouse. Whilst not a consideration for this proposal, the applicant has explained that the property will be marketed at young professionals.
Amenity Each bedroom within the HMO will have at least one window that will provide an adequate level of light, outlook and ventilation for occupiers. The communal living room, dining space and kitchen will be on the ground floor, utilising dual aspect windows for light, outlook and ventilation. These communal rooms are approximately 21m² in floor space which is considered acceptable, especially in addition to the individual bedrooms which range between 10m² to 12m². There is also a suitable level of space within the rear garden for occupiers to enjoy private amenity space.
According to the Council’s Standards for houses in multiple occupation the following space standards are required to be met – Single occupancy bedroom (with separate shared facilities) – 6.5sqm Combined kitchen dining room for 6-10 persons – 19.5sqm
There is no requirement for a separate living room in a HMO where all bedrooms are over 10sqm.
All bedrooms in the proposed HMO will be for single occupancy and will exceed 6.5sqm. The combined kitchen/dining space will exceed 19.5sqm, thereby complying with the standards for a HMO with between 6 and 10 people living in it. There is no requirement for a separate living room to be provided but the kitchen/dining space includes living room space. On this basis, it is considered that future occupants of the proposed HMOs will be provided with a satisfactory level of amenity.
It is considered that noise will not be significantly different to that associated with a typical large family dwelling. The likely comings and goings are likely to be more intense but not to the extent that it will cause detrimental harm to neighbouring residential amenity. There are no objections from Urban Vision’s Environmental Consultant in this regard.
It is recognised that there are a number of windows within the front elevation, facing 11 and 13 Brook Street, that currently serve non-habitable spaces and are proposed to serve habitable spaces (bedrooms). The separation distance between these facing windows is approximately 19m. It is acknowledged that these are existing windows serving a residential property. The internal layout of this dwelling could be altered with these rooms being used as habitable spaces, without any control from the LPA. On this basis, the use of the HMO with habitable room windows on the front elevation is considered acceptable and will not create undue loss of amenity to neighbours.
To the rear of the property, the ground and first floor windows will all serve non-habitable spaces (hallways and shower room). These windows will directly overlook the property’s own rear garden space, beyond which is the
Page 71
$c1r5kjzt.docx garden associated with 2 Brook Street, the boundary of which is approximately 9m away. There will be no loss of privacy or overlooking to these neighbours as a result.
There is an adequate level of space around the dwelling to accommodate a suitably sized bin store. A condition has been attached requiring details of the siting and design of the proposed bin shelter to be agreed by the LPA prior to occupation of the HMO.
The proposal is considered to be in accordance with policies DES7 and EN17 of the UDP and the thrust of the NPPF as it would not adversely affect the level of residential amenity neighbouring residents can reasonably expect to enjoy and the development will provide future occupants with a satisfactory standard of living.
Design The only external alterations proposed are the closing up of two glazed panels, either side of the main access door and the removal of a section of the boundary fencing and gates to allow appropriate space and access for the parking of 5 vehicles within the curtilage.
The boundary railings and gates are of no particular high quality or importance to require their retention and a condition will be attached to ensure that the materials used in the closing up of the glazed panels match those of the main building. This will ensure that there is no detrimental impact on the character of the dwelling or the wider area.
Highways Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states the development shall 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.
The site is sustainably located with bus stops located on Moorside Road, providing limited connection to Eccles and Prestwich. Further afield, there are additional bus stops located on the East Lancashire Road providing regular connections to Manchester City Centre and Leigh. Alternatively, within an average 7 minute walk, is Moorside Railway Station, providing regular services to Manchester City Centre and Wigan.
During consideration of the application, the proposal has been amended to introduce additional on-site parking to allow 5 vehicles to park within the curtilage of the site. This will include the removal of some of the fencing and gates located to the front of the parking spaces and will require the existing vehicular footway crossover point to be amended to allow all vehicles to safely access the proposed parking spaces.
It is also proposed to provide 10 cycle parking spaces within the site. This is acceptable in principal but the details of the proposed racking system and secure shelters need to be agreed, ensuring that the cycle parking facilities are suitable for long term use. This detail can be secured by condition to be discharged prior to the first occupation of the HMO.
Subject to this, the proposal is not considered to pose a severe impact on the highway.
Recommendation Approve
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:
Site - Location and Block Plan, drawing number DA19070. 001. Proposed GA Plans and Elevations, drawing number DA19070. 003. Rev 1 Site Amenity Plan, drawing number DA19070. 302 Rev 1
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
Page 72
$c1r5kjzt.docx 3. The external materials used shall match those of the existing building so far as practicable.
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.
4. The vehicle parking and access arrangements to serve the development hereby permitted, shown on the approved Site Amenity Plan, reference DA19070. 302. Rev 1, 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.
Reason for pre-commencement condition: The on-site parking must be available prior to occupation to prevent an unacceptable impact on the surrounding highway network.
5. Notwithstanding the details shown on the Site Amenity Plan, reference DA19070. 302. Rev 1, prior to first occupation of the development, details of the location, materials and design of the proposed bin store shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved bin store shall be installed prior to first occupation of the development and maintained as such thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity in accordance with Policies DES1 and EN17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Reason for pre-commencement condition: The on-site bin storage area must be available prior to occupation to prevent an unacceptable impact on the surrounding highway network and the character of the area.
6. Notwithstanding the details shown on the Site Amenity Plan, reference DA19070. 302. Rev 1, prior to first occupation of the development, details of the location, materials and design of the proposed cycle storage racking system and shelter shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved cycle store shall be installed prior to first occupation of the development and retained and maintained as such 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.
Reason for pre-commencement condition: The on-site cycle parking must be available prior to occupation to ensure that all facilities for future occupiers are available for use and to prevent an unacceptable impact on the surrounding highway network and the character of the area.
7. All bedrooms within the HMO hereby approved shall be occupied on a single occupancy basis only at all times.
Reason: In the interests of protecting visual and residential amenity and in the interest of highway safety and the free flow of traffic in accordance with Policies DES1, DES7, EN17, A2, A8 and A10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Notes to Applicant
1. STANDING ADVICE - DEVELOPMENT LOW RISK AREA
The proposed development lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to the Coal Authority on 0345 762 6848.
Page 73
$c1r5kjzt.docx Further information is also available on the Coal Authority website at: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority
This Standing Advice is valid from 1st January 2019 until 31st December 2020
2. Dilapidation Survey: The 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
General Highway Information: Requests for general Information regarding the adopted highway network shall be directed to the Local Highway Authority - John Horrocks- 0161 603 4046
3. The works on the adopted highway shall be delivered by Section 171 agreement and Greater Manchester Roads Activities Permit Scheme (GMRAPS). 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
4. The developer must ensure that all existing utilities (i.e. drainage, BT pole and adopted street lighting) are protected and that they have the relevant permission from the various utility providers to undertake any work within the vicinity of the utility, within the footway and to protect the road construction.
5. Any amendments to the adopted carriageway and footway need to be re-instated using similar materials or a material approved by the Council's engineer.
Page 74
$c1r5kjzt.docx Agenda Item 5d PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No: 19/73649/ADV APPLICANT: Mr Matthew Shipman LOCATION: Land Off Green Lane, Eccles, M30 0RJ PROPOSAL: Display of 1 no v-board hoarding WARD: Eccles
Figure 1 – the subject site
Description of Site and Surrounding Area
The application relates to the land off Green Lane, adjacent to the Canal and on the corner of Cassidy Way. To the east of the site is a housing development constructed by Bellway and there is further housing to the south- west. Commercial uses exist to the south east of the site. The site is within close proximity to the M602.
Description of Proposal
Planning permission is sought for the erection of 1no. v-board sign.
The proposed v-board sign will have a height of 5m and a width of 2.4m. It would be 2.8m from the ground to the base of the advertisement. The sign would be made from aluminium and displaying ‘The Brackens’. The sign would not be illuminated. It would be located on the east side of Green Lane adjacent to the Bellway development. The sign can be seen at Figure 2.
The proposed sign is intended to be displayed until 1st January 2024.
Page 75
Figure 2 – the proposed signage details (sign 2 – V board 5m x 2.444m)
Figure 3 – the location of the proposed sign
Publicity
Site Notice: Advertisement Consent site notice - Date Displayed: 20 August 2019 Reason: Wider Publicity
Press Advert: Not applicable. Reason: Not applicable.
Relevant Site History
No relevant site history.
Page 76 Representations
There have been 6 representations received for the proposal. The following comments have been made:
The road is dangerous, when the hoardings are there; it distracts the drivers on the bend. It would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity namely the Bridgewater Canal. The signs are placed on land not belonging to the applicant.
Consultations
Highways - No objections.
Planning Policy
Development Plan Policy
Unitary Development Plan DEV2 – Advertisements Policy DEV 2 states that consent will only be given for the display of advertisements where they would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity or public safety. In addition, all advertisements will be required to: i. be of a size and scale consistent with their surroundings; ii. respect the sensitivity of the location, and minimise any negative impact on residential areas, conservation areas, listed buildings, environmental improvement corridors, public open spaces and the countryside; iii. avoid creating signage clutter, or changing the character of the area; iv. avoid the use of intense or intermittent illumination, where this would have a negative material impact on visual amenity or highway safety; and v. where appropriate, incorporate artistic features, landscaping and decorative fencing.
When advertisements are located on, or immediately adjacent to, an existing building or structure, they will be required to: a. appear as an integral feature of the structure/building; b. not obscure or otherwise detract from any important architectural feature; c. respect the symmetry of the structure/building; and d. not detract from the design or character of the structure/building in any other way.
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.
Other Material Planning Considerations
National Planning Policy Local Planning Policy
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 were subject to public consultation until 18th March and 22nd March 2019 respectively. 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.
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.
Page 77 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 of the Proposed Development
Amenity
The main issues for consideration with this application are the impacts of the proposed advertisement on amenity and public safety. The main policies of relevance are DEV2 and A8 of the City of Salford adopted UDP and Paragraph 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which states that “Advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts.”
The proposed sign would be to the east side of Green Lane. It is not considered to appear dominant in the street scene or have a significant impact on the residents to the east. It would be set back from the highway and is considered to respect the sensitivity of the location in accordance with UDP Policy DEV2 parts i and ii and would not have a significant impact on the character of the area. As the only advert on the land, it is not considered to clutter the area in accordance with DEV2 (iii). The sign would not be illuminated, which accords with Policy DEV2 (iv).
Given the design of the advert together with the nature of the immediate locality, it is considered that it responds to its physical context, does not have a negative impact upon local visual amenity, and is of a scale suitable to its surroundings. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policy DEV2 of the Salford UDP.
Impact on the highway network
The proposed sign is sited off the adopted highway and therefore there is no over-sailing issue nor would it cause any pedestrian obstruction. It would be set well back from the road and as shown on Figure 3, would not block the view of the road for passing traffic or cause a distraction for drivers. The council’s consultant highways officer have raised no objections.
It is therefore considered that the signage does not have an adverse impact on highway safety and it is in accordance with Policy A8 of the Salford UDP.
Recommendation:
Approve
1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Drwg. No. Tech BH2 ACM Double Sided – Green lane Signage Details Sign 2 (Received: 04.07.2019) Drwg. No. PLAN – Green Lane Amended Signage Locations (Received: 19.09.2019) Drwg. No. BHM036/LP01 B – Location Plan (Received: 19.09.2019)
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
2. (a) Any advertisements, displayed, and any land used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Page 78 (b) Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a safe condition.
(c) Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the removal shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
(d) No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.
(e) No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any road traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water, or air, or so as otherwise to render hazardous the use of any highway, waterway (including any coastal waters) or aerodrome (civil or military).
Reason: Required to be imposed by Regulation 2(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.
Page 79 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5e
APPLICATION No: 19/73053/FUL APPLICANT: First Names (Jersey) Ltd And First Names Corporate Services LOCATION: Former British Vita Salford, Seaford Road, Salford, M6 6AQ, PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 136 residential dwellings and associated works with site access off Seaford Road WARD: Irwell Riverside
Description of Site and Surrounding Area
The site is located on the west side of Seaford Road in Salford. The site extends to 2.18 hectares and comprises vacant industrial premises with access into the site taken from Seaford Road. Uses surrounding the site comprise a mix of employment to the south, residential and student residential accommodation with some small scale local retail uses to the north and east and The Albion High School is situated to the west.
The site was formerly occupied by Salford Vita which was used for the manufacturing of coated fabrics. The site comprises a variety of brick built industrial buildings, including a brick water tower. The remainder of the site is hard surfaced and used for access, parking and servicing areas. In general the buildings are in a poor state of repair.
The land levels across the site rise towards the west, with land levels close to the western boundary of the site being approximately 4m higher than those to the east along Seaford Road.
Page 81 Description of Proposal
Planning permission is sought for the erection of 136 dwellings and associated works which would include the demolition of all the buildings within the site. The development proposes a mix of 72 houses and 64 apartments as follows:
House Type Number of units Two bed dwelling 22 Three bed dwelling 50 One bed apartment 16 Two bed apartment 48
All the proposed dwellings would be for market housing and will be Private Rented Sector (PRS).
Vehicle access into the site would be taken from Seaford Road. Within the site there would be a series of cul- de-sacs and shared driveways off them. The dwellings would be positioned to front the internal roads and shared spaces within the development. The two blocks of apartments are situated to front Seaford Road with access to the car parking being taken from the internal roads.
There would be a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties within the development all of which would be 2 storey. The dwellings would be constructed from brick with tiled, pitched roofs and would have a traditional appearance. All dwellings would have rear gardens and off road parking.
There would also be two apartment blocks within the scheme which would be 4 storeys in height. Like the dwellings the apartments would be constructed from brick but would have flat roofs and a more contemporary appearance. Each dwelling would have its own dedicated off street car parking and there would be 58 car parking spaces and 32 cycle parking spaces dedicated to the apartments.
The application has been accompanied by a range of supporting documents as follows: - Design and Access Statement Air Quality Assessment Archaeological Report Bat Survey Crime Impact Statement Ecological Appraisal Flood Risk Assessment Noise Assessment Phase II intrusive investigation report Planning Statement Sustainability Checklist Transport Assessment and Note Travel Plan Tree Survey Report Planning Obligations Pro-forma Statement Viability Appraisal
Publicity
Site Notice: Non HH Article 15 Date Displayed: 13 February 2019 Reason: Article 13
Press Advert: Manchester Weekly News Salford EditionDate Published: 21 February 2019 Reason: Article 15 Standard Press Notice
Neighbour Notification
350 neighbouring residents were notified of the planning application on the 12th February 2019. Further letters were sent on the 24th April 2019 notifying neighbours of amended plans and again on the 12th July 2017 notifying neighbours of amended plans and additional information.
Representations
Page 82 Two letters of objection have been received. One letter requests that the S106 monies are set aside for improvements to Littleton Road allotments noting that the ability to grow crops had benefit to the planet and the mental and physical wellbeing of residents.
The other raises concerns about the inclusion of a pedestrian access onto Blandford Road. They are concerned that this access point will increase vehicle traffic along Blandford Road, as people will use Blandford Road as drop off point. The state that due to the increased volume of traffic, that cars are parked along both sides of the road and that as there is no turning head at the end of Blandford Road such an approach will have a detrimental impact on highway safety, particularly for children using the highway. The increase in traffic will also create noise and antisocial behaviour. Concern is also raised that the pedestrian access to the site from Blandford Road is unacceptable from a crime perspective as it will create an escape route for criminals and drug dealers by foot and by cycle and motorbike. They also considered that this arrangement also has the potential to attract additional crime. The route is also not well overlooked and could create a hiding point at the end of the Blandford Road. The writer of this specific objection has stated that they are happy to remove their objection if the access onto Blandford Road is removed and access into the site is solely gained from Seaford Road.
Relevant Site History
93/32073/FUL - Construction of new loading area together with associated car parking. Application approved 23.06.1994 95/33525/FUL - Erection of security fencing and gate. Application approved 22.06.1995 95/34011/FUL - Erection of a two tier run of galvanised steel revolving cacti spikes to top of new boundary wall. Application approved 19.07.1995 95/34593/FUL - Erection of steel cladding and steel railings along Seaford Road elevation. Application approved 14.12.1995 95/34629/ADV - Display of non-illuminated fascia sign. Application approved 14.12.1995 96/35292/FUL - Erection of first floor store extension above existing flat roof. Application approved 17.07.1996 97/36600/FUL - Alterations to front elevations. Application approved 16.02.1998 98/38064/FUL - Construction of temporary car park to the rear and replace existing security shutters on office with decorative security grills and construction of lean-to shelter. Application approved 16.07.1998 03/46212/FUL - Erection of external canopy roof with 3m high perimeter fence to form flammable goods store. Application approved 14.07.2003 14/65216/SCI – Request for screening opinion on land at Seaford Road. Environmental Impact Assessment is not required 14/65806/OUT - Demolition of existing buildings and structures on site and outline planning consent for residential redevelopment of up to 80 dwellings with detailed access (all other matters reserved) - Application minded to approve by members in September 2015 subject to applicant signing a legal agreement. 16/68074/DEMCON - All buildings and structures at the Former Vita Works site (excluding boundary wall to north) – No objections 13th May 2016
Consultations
Design For Security – Recommend a condition that the recommendations within section 4 of the CIS are secured. They also recommend that the applicant adhere to section 3.3 of the CIS.
Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Land - No objection to the amended scheme, subject to a suite of conditions on noise, contaminated land and air quality. More detail is set out in the officer report.
Senior Drainage Engineer - No objection subject to conditions securing a surface water drainage scheme, setting the finished floor levels of the development and that the development is constructed from flood resilient materials.
Highways - No objection subject to S106 monies towards junction improvements, public transport improvements, a series of off-site works including dropped kerbs and a suite of conditions.
Environment Agency - No objection to the scheme subject to a contaminated land conditions which secure further site investigation and site remediation to be agreed prior to the commencement of development.
Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service - Concur with the conclusions of the archaeological desk based assessment submitted with the application that no further archaeological mitigation is required.
Page 83 Greater Manchester Ecological Unit - No objections to the application.
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 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 ST14 - Global Environmental This policy states that development will be required to minimise its impact on the global environment. Major development proposals will be required to demonstrate how they will minimise greenhouse gas emissions.
Unitary Development Plan E2 - Innovation Park This policy states that planning permission will only be granted within the Innovation Park where development contributes towards the establishment and expansion of the Innovation Park and incorporates significant elements of knowledge based employment and/or education uses.
Unitary Development Plan E3 - Knowledge Capital This policy states that a Knowledge Capital will be developed, focusing upon the “Arc of Opportunity” around the University of Salford. The provision of financial and professional services and other office based uses; creative, cultural and media industries; communications; research and development; and higher education will be emphasised.
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 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.
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 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 84 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 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.
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 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 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
Page 85 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 (NPPF) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
Local Planning Policy
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 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 - 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 - 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.
Supplementary Planning Document - Established Employment Areas This document contains a number of polices that promotes sustainable economic growth, which both enhances prosperity and reduces inequalities. The document encourages the provision of a wide range of employment opportunities, having regard to evidence based conclusions on need and demand.
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.
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.
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.
It is not considered that there are any local finance considerations that are material to the application
Page 86 Appraisal
Principle of Development
The application site falls under the remit of policy E5 as it forms part of the Seaford Road Industrial Estate.
Criterion 1 of policy E5 states that planning permission will not be granted for non employment uses unless ‘the development would not compromise the operating conditions of other remaining employment uses’.
The applicant has submitted a Noise Assessment and Air Quality Assessment which assesses the compatibility of the new residential development and the existing employment uses. The layout of the development has been amended during the course of the application to address noise issues.
Urban Vision Air and Noise have assessed the submitted information and have confirmed that the site is suitable for residential development subject to conditions to control noise during the construction period and the erection of acoustic fencing. It is also acknowledged that the new site access will be located further away from the existing access into the Seaford Industrial and as such this should reduce potential conflict. In light of this, and subject to the inclusion of conditions, it is therefore considered that the applicant has provided the required supplementary evidence to demonstrate that criterion 1 of Policy E5 can be met.
With regard to part 2 of policy E5 the applicant has sought to demonstrate that criteria (a) is applicable which states that ‘the developer can clearly demonstrate that there is no current or likely future demand for the site or building for employment purposes’.
In the 2015 application, in which the principle of residential development on the site was considered to be acceptable, the site was considered to be in a poor state on repair as it had been vacant since 2009. In accordance with part 2 of policy E5, the applicant successfully demonstrated that demand for the existing accommodation on site was limited mainly due to the quality and configuration of the units.
In respect of this application the applicants have confirmed that the agents marketing the site have had a hoarding erected on the site for the last four and a half years and these have not attracted any tangible interest. No details have been received in respect of the level of interest despite this being requested. The applicant states that the site is listed with the Council’s published Brownfield Register which lists sites which are suitable for housing. The applicant also quotes paragraph 6.28 of the draft GMSF which states “The GMSF makes provision for an industrial and warehousing supply considerably higher than the overall development requirement, reflecting the need to compete internationally for investment and provide sufficient choice and flexibility to respond to the varied needs of different businesses”. They argue in this context, that the loss of the application site to residential will not result in a shortage of employment land in the long term and likewise in terms of marketability, it is difficult for the application site to be attractive to end users when considering proposals being put forward in the GMSF.
Whilst it is disappointing that very little evidence has been submitted to back up the E5 argument, given the minded to approve 2015 application and that we have no information to contradict the lack of marketing that it would be difficult to mount an argument to refuse the application. The council supports the provision of housing on this site subject to the development meeting the other policies in the development plan. Therefore the development is considered to not conflict with part 2 of policy E5.
The site falls within the Innovation Park (policy E2) and the Knowledge Capital Arc of Opportunity (policy E3). Policies E2 and E3 are closely linked with the Innovation Park (E2) being described as supporting the development of Knowledge Capital (para 8.14 of policy E3). The reasoned justification to Policy E2 describes that “the creation of an Innovation Park to assist in the development of new businesses will be an important element in the continued economic development of the city. The Innovation Park will be based around the existing University Business Park, and will have strong links to the University of Salford, Salford College and the new Albion High School”. In the 2015 application the applicant considered the refurbishment of the existing stock and the redevelopment of the site for small to medium sized B2/B8 units, all these options were reviewed by the Council’s Estates Team who confirmed that these were not viable prospects. In 2015 it was also noted that there were vacancies in the existing science park and there was no appetite to expand the science park now or in the future.
In terms of the policies E2 and E3, there are no specific changes in circumstances that would alter previous conclusions that no current or likely future demand for the site for employment and in particular that there is not
Page 87 a reasonable level of confidence that this site will come forward for knowledge based uses. Although aspirations for the expansion of the Innovation Park have been identified in the Salford Crescent masterplan, these extend to the south towards Chapel Street rather than towards the site subject of this application.
Paragraph 120 of the NPPF describes that “Planning policies need to reflect changes in the demand for land. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where the local planning authority considers there to be no reasonable prospect of an application coming forward applications for the use allocated in the plan, an alternative use on the land should be supported, where the proposed use would contribute to meeting an unmet need for development in the area.
In light of the comments above, in the context on NPPF para 120 as there is not a reasonable level of confidence that this site will come forward for knowledge based uses, that the site is not a key component in the growth of the Innovation Park then it is right that the Council consider an alternative land use. Being mindful of this residential application it is considered that the redevelopment of the site would bring a vacant brownfield site back into use, which in turn will have positive impacts on the visual amenity of the area, the environment, the local community and economy. In addition the site’s redevelopment is unlikely to have a significant impact on the growth of the Innovation Park as a key element in the continued economic development of the city or the creation of employment opportunities.
Mix, Type and Density
Policy HOU1 of the housing planning guidance states that within the central Salford new developments should provide a broad mix of dwelling types. Apartments should only be the predominant form of provision on sites in the most accessible locations.
The development proposes a mix of 72 houses and 64 apartments which is considered to be acceptable, given the sustainable location of the site, which will be discussed later in the report.
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 22 x 2 bed, 50 x 3 bed therefore the majority of dwellings would have three bedrooms and is in accordance with HOU2.
In respect of apartments HOU2 states that ‘where apartments are proposed the majority of these should be 2 or 3 bedroom and have a floorspace of 57sqm or above’. The development will provide for 48 x 2 bed apartments and 16 x 1 bed. The two bedroom apartments have a floorspace of 57sqm which accords with the policy. The scheme does not provide for any three bedroom units. The lack of 3 bedroom apartments in this instance does not raise concerns, particularly given that 3-bed houses are being provided on the site therefore providing a good mix of property sizes to meet different needs and help to contribute towards the creation of a sustainable community.
Design, Layout and Landscaping
The site would have one vehicular access point from Seaford Road. The proposed layout of this site would be informal in nature, which differs from the existing street pattern of the terrace dwellings to the north of the site. The road layout proposed includes a number of cul-de-sac/shared driveway arrangements, with all dwellings fronting the highway which is supported. The apartments would be positioned to front Seaford Road. They are set back from the back of the pavement to allow landscaping in front of the building and this in turn will ensure that the buildings are not overbearing at pedestrian level along Seaford Road. This arrangement also allows the car and cycle parking, bin store etc associated with the apartments to be screened from the Seaford Road frontage. The bin store for the apartments and the substation for the development are located to the rear of the apartments on frontage of an internal road. There is no objection to the design of the substation which is typical of a substation within a residential area. There is no detail on the final colour treatment of the substation therefore this detail will be secured by condition. The proposed bin stores for the apartment would be constructed from wood and would, due to is construction, only partially screen the bins as the store is open at the top and the bottom. This design of bin store is not appropriate for a prominent position within the street scene and the store should be fully enclosed and be of a more robust material, such as brick. Therefore an alternative form of bin storage will be secured by condition. In respect of the cycle store individual lockers will be provided on site for the apartments. Their location and colour will be secured by condition.
As the development is located within a flood zone there is a requirement to increase land levels across the site. The reasoning for this is discussed in more detail within the flood risk section of this report. The land level centrally within the site will be increased. At some points this increase will be around 1.9m in height. Towards
Page 88 the west of the site land levels will be reduced, at some point by about 1m and towards the east the land levels will fall to meet the existing land levels on Seaford Road but the apartments and dwellings in this area will have elevated floor levels, so will have stepped entrances. Due to the elevated floor levels the apartment blocks and plot 1 which fronts Seaford Road would be taller than those dwelling further back into the site. In respect of plot 1 this would be viewed in the context of the adjacent terrace dwellings which have high floor to ceiling levels. This results in plot 1 having an eaves height comparable to the terraced dwellings and as such is not considered to be incongruous in the street scene. The two apartment buildings have a relatively large footprint and massing. However it is acknowledged that on the east side of Seaford Road, opposite the application site, there are 3 storey properties with dormers within the pitched roof which stand on elevated ground. Moving towards the junction of Seaford Road and Frederick Road, the height of development increases to 6 storeys with a pitched roof. When viewed in this wider context and being mindful of their design with a flat roof it is considered that the 4 storey apartment blocks would not appear out of place in the street scene and as such is considered to be acceptable in respect of UDP policy DES1.
The proposed dwellings are traditional in appearance constructed from brick with pitched roofs. The dwellings would have feature brick detailing around windows, detailed string courses and canopies over front doors. Dwellings located on corner plots have been designed to have additional windows on gable elevations. The dwellings would have white uPVC windows and eaves.
The proposed apartments would too be constructed from brick and would have a flat roof. Flat roofs are not common within the street scene, albeit there are some large flat roof dormers on the student accommodation opposite. Introducing pitched roofs onto the apartments would increase the overall scale and massing of the buildings which in turn could appear incongruous in the street scene. The design of the apartments include parapet detailing, which gives the buildings a clear top. They have a stepped front elevation which helps to add visual interest to the elevations and break down the massing of the blocks. Each block would be constructed from red brick and would include detailing such as feature brick around windows, detailed string courses, brick plinth detailing which links back to the dwellings. The elevations of the apartment blocks appear more contemporary as they have glazed Juliette balconies and grey window frames. Their design is considered to be acceptable and will not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area.
Proposed materials have been submitted with the application these are considered to be acceptable and would respect the context of the immediate area in accordance with the design policies referenced above.
A boundary treatment plan has been submitted with the application which shows that the majority of rear gardens to the properties will be enclosed by 1.8m high close board fencing and where the rear gardens of dwellings border the street boundary walls are proposed. Along the southern boundary of the site the height of the wooden fence will increase to 3m for acoustic reasons. Along the Seaford Road frontage 1.1m high hoop top metal railings will be provided. The approach to boundary treatments is considered to be appropriate.
A landscaping strategy has been submitted with the application which shows extensive grassed rear gardens and tree, hedge and shrub planting to the front of dwellings and around the perimeter of the apartments. The landscaping strategy has not been updated to reflect the layout changes undertaken during the course of the application. The species as shown in the landscaping plan are considered to be suitable, although more detail is required including tree pit construction, seed mixes and planting schedules. Therefore a detailed landscape scheme will be secured by condition. Notwithstanding this the detail submitted with the application provides an indication of hard and soft landscape areas within the site. There are areas within the site where frontages are dominated by large expanses of hard surfaces as a result of the off street car parking provision. The applicant is proposing to introduce red bitumen macadam to groups of car parking to provide visual relief. The applicant is unwilling to reduce car parking provision to allow for larger landscaped areas. Given the areas of concern are towards the rear of the site, within shared spaces, and that the applicant has tried to increase landscaping along the main route into the site it is considered that, on balance, the proposed streetscape is acceptable.
Impact on the highway network and access
A Transport Assessment (TA) and Travel Plan (TP) have been submitted in support of this planning application. Further traffic surveys were conducted during the course of the planning application.
Sustainable location -
The site is well served by public transport being within 1.2.km of Salford Crescent Train Station and close to frequent bus services. The nearest bus stops to the site are located on Seaford Road within a 2-3 minute walk of the site. These stops provide hourly services between Swinton and Shudehill. Higher frequency services are
Page 89 available from stops along the A576 Cromwell Road covering Shudehill, Eccles and Brookhouse Estate at 10 minute intervals, Cheetham Hill at 10-20 minute intervals and the Intu Trafford Centre at hourly intervals.
Although the Transport Statement (TS) highlights the location of the bus stops within the vicinity of the site, there is no mention of their quality. TfGM and the Local Highway Authority (LHA) have recommended that two bus stops (Seaford Road/Frederick Road and Seaford Road/Gerald Road) would be the focus of uptake from future residents. The applicant has agreed to contribute towards these bus stop improvements which will be secured through a planning condition and S278 highway agreement.
The applicants have also submitted a Travel Plan Framework in order to promote the use of public transport. This has been reviewed and it is considered that the Travel Plan Framework provides a starting point from which a Full Residential Travel Plan can be prepared and agreed with the LPA prior to any development being first occupied, so that a full package of measures/incentives can be agreed. A Full Residential Travel Plan would be secured by condition.
The site is also close to National Cycle Route 6 on Gerald Road, and within walking distance of local amenities, evidenced within the supporting documents accompanying the planning application.
In order to maximise the benefits of the site’s location and to encourage walking and cycling, the pedestrian and cycling environment, within and around the site should be designed to be as safe, attractive and convenient as possible, including natural surveillance where possible. This should provide sufficient links to the surrounding pedestrian and cycle networks. The scheme provides for 2m wide footways throughout the development and into the existing highway along Seaford Road. The applicant has agreed to provide tactile paving at the site’s vehicle enterance, renew the footway along Seaford Road along the frontage of the development including reinstating any redundant vehicle crossings which previously served the site. These measures will be secured through a condition and deliveried through a S278 highway agreement.
In response to comments from the LHA the applicant has agreed to provide for the installation of dropped kerb with tactile paving at junctions of Welford Street and at junctions of Coniston Street which will encourage walking and connecting the site to local bus stops and amenities along Seaford Road. These works will also be delivered through a S278 highway agreement.
TfGM and LHA have requested that there is a pedestrian / cycle access to Blandford Road from within the site as they consider this is important to allow for connectivity and to integrate the site with the surrounding residential area. It also provides for a shorter route to the more frequent bus stops on the A576, as there are only hourly services from the bus stops on Seaford Road.
The applicant amended the scheme to provide this connection to Blandford Road, however the LPA did not agree to the form that was proposed as it was very narrow and was considered to lack natural survallance. A request was made to widen the route so that it appeared to be a continuation of Blandford Road, albeit restricted so it could not be used by cars. The applicant did not want to widen the route as in their opinion widening the route would encourage access to the site by vehicles / motorbikes and in ensuring this would not occur would require unsightly mitigation measures to be installed at this location. The applicant is of the opinion that the introduction of a secondary access point here also offers escape routes for criminals in an area which has high crime rates.
The applicant has highlighted that the route would have to cross a strip of unregistered land which exists between the southern tip of Blandford Road and the application site boundary. The unregistered land falls underneath a building which forms part of the former Vita site. The applicant considers that the current landowner cannot sign a statutory declaration as it was the previous tenant of the site who encroached onto this land. The Councils estate team disagrees within this position; however the applicant is unwilling to change their view. They have confirmed that their intention is to remove any structures and the wall on this land and make this area good but it will not form part of the development site.
The applicants have provided a sustainable distance review to demonstrate the typical time it would take to walk to local amenities and education facilities in the area with and without the connections to Blandford Street. Taking the concerns of the LHA and TfGM and the connection to more frequent bus services on A576 the applicants have calculated that walking time to the bus stop adjacent to Rowsley Street would be 07:47 minutes without the pedestrian link and 04:52 minutes with the link, a time saving of 02.55 minutes. This document also seeks to demonstrate that the site is well connected to the local bus network.
Page 90 Whilst the crime issues and concerns of residents are acknowledged, it is considered that there would be benefits to opening up this pedestrian link and integrating this new development into the existing urban grain and this can be successfully achieved by designing a space with high quality public realm which benefits from high levels of natural surveillance.
However, it is accepted that the site is part of an established residential area and is sustainable being well located to local amenities and whilst there would be a time saving for pedestrians travelling to services to the north west of the site by using a route at the end of Blandford Road it is not considered that this time saving is so significant there would be grounds to refuse the application. Therefore as the main reason to provide this link is due to improved accessibility it is considered that the layout as presented is acceptable.
In summary, a contribution towards pedestrian improvements and public transport is proposed which will provide future residents with genuine alternatives to travel by private vehicles.
Likely Trip Generation -
The TA submitted with the application examines the potential trip generation of the site against the former industrial use. The trip data provided within the TA demonstrates that the former industrial use of the site is likely to generate a similar number of 2-way vehicular movements at peak times and over a typical day compared with the proposed residential use. However, we should be mindful that the industrial use has been closed for over 5 years.
The City’s Highway officer has noted that, since the closure of the industrial use, the volume of background traffic has increased within the vicinity of the development and considers the traffic model for the proposed site access and Seaford Road / Frederick Road junction is over optimistic.
The additional modelling undertaken by the applicant shows that the junction is currently operating at practical capacity during the peak periods. During the future year base scenario, the junction will exceed practical capacity. This situation will be worsened further with the addition of development traffic.
Having local knowledge of the highway network and particularly Seaford Road, the City’s Highway officer considers it likely that the traffic from the development will be unable to conveniently exit from the development due to traffic blocking back from the signal junction and passing the proposed site entrance of the development.
UV and TfGM / UTC already recognize Seaford Road / Frederick Road junction is over capacity however in order to mitigate the impact of this development the application has agreed to contribute £45,000 towards the implementation of MOVA at this junction. This would allow traffic from the development to have convenient access to the local highway network. This contribution would be secured by S106.
Proposed Access Arrangements -
The scheme proposes one new vehicle access point into the development from Seaford Road which is 6.75m wide. The highways officer has confirmed that appropriate visibility in both directions along Seaford Road can be achieved from this junction. In order to maximise visibility at this junction the Highways Officer has highlighted the need to secure TROs along Seaford Road close to the new junction in order to ensure that vehicles can enter and exit the site safely.
Internal Layout and Parking Provision -
The proposed plan will provide off street parking for 179 car parking spaces across the development which equates to 1.3 spaces per dwelling. UDP policy A10 indicates that development with more than 1.5 off- street parking spaces per dwelling or unit of accommodation, averaged over the city area, is unlikely to be regarded as sustainable. The scheme accords with this and as such the level of car parking is considered to be acceptable.
In respect of cycle parking for the apartments, at the request of the LPA the applicant has agreed to provide 32 bike lockers for future occupiers. They are to be provided to the rear of the apartment block, however the layout as shown on the proposed site plan is impractical as there is limited space to manoeuvre a cycle into the locker. Therefore a revised layout for the lockers will be secured by condition.
In light of the above it is considered that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the operation of the highway network, the applicant has agreed to measures which would promote the use
Page 91 of sustainable modes of transport and as such the development is considered to accord with UDP policies A2, A8 and A10.
Amenity
The site bounds dwellings along the northern boundary. The dwellings are located on Seaford Road, Welford Street and Blandford Street.
No.65 Seaford Road has its gable elevation facing the application site and there are no windows in this gable elevation. Plots 1 and 2 would be sited approximately 12m from the boundary with no.65 and such it is considered that the siting of the proposed dwelling would not have an overbearing impact on the amenity or privacy residents at no.65 currently enjoy.
In respect of dwellings along Welford Street the proposed dwellings would be over 16.4 to the rear boundaries of existing properties, this distance, being mindful of land level changes, is considered to be acceptable to ensure the proposed dwellings do not have an overbearing impact on amenity. The existing boundary treatment to the rear of existing properties together with that proposed on the northern boundary of the site will ensure that privacy between properties is maintained. At first floor there would be over 21.2m between facing habitable room windows which is also considered to be acceptable to safeguard privacy.
No.53 Blandford Road gable elevation faces the application site, however is set back off the boundary due to an alleyway. There is a distance of 11m between the gable elevation of no.53 and plot 24. This relationship is considered to be acceptable to ensure that the development will not have an unacceptable overbearing impact on the habitable room windows to the rear of no.53.
No.44 Blandford Road also gables onto the application site. There was a former alleyway between no.44 and the application site but this area is now used as a garden for no.44. Plots 15 to 17 are considered to be a suitable distance and be offset from no.44 to ensure that they do not have an overbearing impact on the amenity currently enjoyed by these residents. The rear windows in plots 15 and 16 are over 10m from the common boundary; there will be overlooking of no.44s garden area however it is not considered that this is of a level which would warrant the refusal of the application.
To the west is Albion High School and to the south there are industrial units. As such there are no amenity issues in respect of these uses.
In respect of amenity of future occupiers, due to noise constraints there will be parts of the site boundary to the south and west which require a 3m acoustic fence. For the majority of dwellings the acoustic boundary treatment sits along their rear boundary, at closest point the 3m fence will be 6.6m from habitable windows in the rear elevation of plot 45. Whilst it is acknowledged that the fence will cause some overshadowing of the garden it is considered that it is sufficient offset from habitable rooms in dwellings to ensure that it is not overbearing on the internal living environment of dwellings. In respect of plot 43 the fence would be in close proximity to the ground floor window in the front elevation. At ground floor this window would serve a kitchen. It is considered that this relationship would not have a detrimental impact on future occupiers of plot 43. In respect of plot 35 the fence would run along the entire length of the side and rear boundary of the rear garden. Given this plot has a long garden of 10m and the garden is 6m wide with the gable elevation of the dwelling being off- set from the boundary, it is considered that there will be some overshadowing of the garden but there will be limited impact upon the light entering the internal living space and as such this relationship is considered acceptable.
In light of the details above and subject to agreeing the landscape details it is considered that the scheme will not have an unacceptable overbearing impact on the amenity or privacy existing residents currently enjoy in accordance with DES7.
There are certain points within the development where the Council’s normal separation distances would not be maintained. At their closest point, 18.2m is provided between front elevations. Other areas which are short of the separation distances are where windows face gable elevations - the closest relationship here is 10m. It is considered in this circumstance these distances have been dictated by the need to make efficient use of the site and it is acknowledged that the layout creates a strong and positive street frontage. It is also acknowledged the potential occupier will be ‘buying into’ this relationship and therefore reduced separation distances are considered to be appropriate in this case.
Page 92 The development would 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.
Design and Crime
A Crime Impact Statement (CIS) has been submitted in support of the planning application. This details positive aspects of the scheme which include bringing activity to the site most times of the day, that the apartments and the dwellings are designed to not include deep recesses and will create overlooking of the street. The car parking areas for the apartments are well overlooked and dwellings would be provided with in curtilage car parking. The ground floor windows of dwellings and apartments along Seaford Road are set at a higher level due to elevated floor levels to address flooding, this is deemed to be a positive in the CIS as resident’s possessions cannot be easily observed and this arrangement also reduces the potential impacts of any antisocial behaviour.
In respect of the proposed dwellings the CIS states that the fencing for each property should be suitably secure particularly along boundaries adjacent to public spaces and gates should be as close to the front elevation as possible. In respect of the apartments the CIS discusses the car parking and amenity spaces being enclosed with high railings. Fencing is proposed to the Seaford Road frontage which is appropriate to delineate between private and public spaces. To fence the entire perimeter, whilst the security benefits are acknowledged, from a visual appearance it is considered that this could create a hostile atmosphere. The car parking spaces for the apartments will benefit from a high level of natural surveillance and as such on balance it is considered that the approach presented is the most appropriate. Overall it is considered that the choice of boundary treatments in terms of their position, height and material is considered to be appropriate.
The DFS team has requested that physical security specifications are conditioned. The majority of these points are considered to be technical details which are beyond the remit of planning control and as such an informative is to be recommended to draw the applicant’s attention to these points should they wish to pursue a formal application for Secure by Design.
In light of the above, there are significant benefits to the wider area and local community for bringing this vacant and neglected site forward for development. The development has been designed to discourage crime, anti- social behaviour and the fear of crime, and support personal and property security in accordance with DES10 of the UDP and the Crime and Design SPD.
Trees
The application has been supported by a Tree Report. This has been reviewed by the Council’s consultant arborist who consideres that the report presents a fair and accurate appraisal of the trees on site. 20 individual trees and 2 groups have been recorded on site.
Within the site 15 of the trees and the 2 group features have been categorised as C. In order to facilitate the development, the applicant is proposing that all trees within the site are removed. Category C trees should not be allowed to constrain a development and as such there are no objections on arboricultural grounds to the loss of the trees. The applicant has submitted a detail landscaping scheme in support of the application and although the full detail of this has not yet been agreed; replacement tree planting across the site in excess of the 2:1 requirements in policy TD6 of the Tree and Development SPD can be achieved.
Five individual trees have been categorised as category B trees, all of these sit outside the site boundary within the pavement along Seaford Road. In order to safeguard the category B trees, the tree report proposes fencing to protect them during the construction period; a condition is recommended to secure this. However it is also noted that Highway Colleagues have indicated that there may be a requirement to remove or prune some trees to ensure appropriate visibility from the new site junction and to improve pedestrian access along the footway to the front of the development. Any tree removal moving forward will be assessed under a S278 agreement with the Local Highway Authority.
In light of the above it is considered that the scheme will fully accord with UDP policy EN12 and the Trees and Development SPD.
Ecology
Page 93 The application has been supported by a bat survey and an ecological appraisal and it is noted that GMEU have reviewed these and raised no objection to the scheme.
The ecological appraisal recommends that cotoneaster is eradicated from the site, that vegetation is removed outside breeding bird season and that bat boxes are introduced into the site. In respect of cotoneaster 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. A condition securing this method statement together with its implementation is recommended.
The ecological appraisal recommends that vegetation clearance is undertaken outside breeding bird season. 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. Therefore, as to not to duplicate legislation, an informative has been added to remind the applicant of this.
The bat survey submitted with the application confirmed that there was no evidence of bats roosting within the site. Low levels of bat activity were recorded on site and the report. Therefore it concludes that not further surveys are deemed necessary.
In line with the ecological appraisal and bat survey the landscape condition will secure bat and bird boxes.
In light of the above and being mindful that the scheme will include extensive landscaped areas which will have a positive impact on bio-diversity it is considered that the development would not have a detrimental or irreversible impact on ecology therefore the proposal is considered to be acceptable in this regard.
Flood Risk and Drainage
The application site is located within Flood Zone 2 and also within a Critical Drainage Area. A flood risk assessment (FRA) has been submitted in support of the application.
The FRA confirms that the site is protected from fluvial flooding during the 1 in 100 year event and in a 1 in 100 year plus climate change event. However in the 1 in 1000 year event the site would experience flooding. In order to mitigate and protect future development from being at risk from flooding the FRA proposes that the finished floor levels should be set no lower than 30.28m AOD this would be achieved by raising the land levels across the site. The visual impact of this has been assessed in the design section above and deemed to be acceptable.
Given the site is located in Flood Zone 2 and to minimize damage in the event of a flood in accordance with policy FRD7 the development should be constructed with flood resilient materials up to the 1,000 year flood level and this will be secured by condition.
In respect of drainage, as the site is known to be polluted due to former use, any use of SUDs features which could result in infiltration may lead to pollution leaving the site. Therefore in this instance, it is appropriate to collect surface water and discharge to the public sewer network. A drainage strategy was submitted with the application however this has not been updated to reflect the amendments to the site layout made during the application therefore a final drainage strategy will be agreed via condition.
In light of the above it is considered that the proposed development would accord with EN19 and the Flood Risk and Development Planning Guidance.
Pollution
Contamination –
The applicant has submitted a phase II intrusive investigation report in support of the application. The site is impacted by emulsified phthalates which has impacted shallow groundwater and soils. This contamination also presents a risk of vapour penetration into future properties. Phthalates are known to be highly persistent in the Environment, and where the site is impacted further investigation and specialist remediation will be required.
The report concludes that an overarching remediation strategy will be required including protocols for demolition and decommissioning of the site (to prevent any further contamination), remediation and regeneration. Specialist and long-term remediation will be required with respect to the parts of the site which are impacted by the phthalates.
Page 94 The ground investigation across the wider site detected elevated levels of arsenic, lead, asbestos, petroleum hydrocarbons, VOC’s and PAH’s which would be anticipated on such a site. Remediation is required in these areas to safeguard future occupants and the groundwater.
The investigation has shown contamination in the shallow groundwater related to the former tanks in the east of the site. Investigations are on-going to determine whether the contamination has reached the underlying principal aquifer.
Ground gas assessment indicates the majority of the site would be characterised as CS1 (requiring no specific gas protection measures) however areas of the site have shown elevated CO2 levels and will require CS2 gas protection measures.
A suite of planning conditions is recommended and in order to ensure the on-going, long term protection of the water environment. The EA have made it clear that without these conditions, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and they would object to the application.
Air Quality –
The application site lies outside the Greater Manchester Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), however given the scale of the development there is potential for the number of vehicle movements generated as a result of the development to have a detrimental impact on the AQMA and air quality further afield. There is also the potential for fugitive dust emissions during the construction phase to impact on the AQMA and also nearby receptors. The application is supported by an air quality impact assessment which is considered to be representative of the conditions in the area.
Whilst the model shows that the pollutants will increase as a result of the development. The model predicts the development will result in a maximum increase in NO2 concentrations at the residential properties adjacent to 3 Seaford Road of +0.49 µg/m although the predicted concentration of NO2 at this location remains below the limit value. At two of the modelled receptors annual mean concentrations are predicted to be above the UK limit value; however these are not new exceedances, as the model shows concentrations are above the limit with, and without the development. 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 bus stop improvements and pedestrian improvements, 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 City’s environmental consultants have considered the report and agree with its findings and conclusions. It is recommended that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is secured prior to the commencement of development to control dust and other environmental issues during the construction phase.
Noise –
A noise impact assessment was submitted in support of the application. The application site is bounded to the north by existing residential properties, with Seafood Road to the east, Broughton Road and Frederick Road to the South. A recycling plant is located to the south and west of the site. Depending on the location within the site, properties will be subject to various degrees of noise as a result of the above sources.
The City’s Environmental Consultant objected to the scheme as insufficient information was submitted to fully consider the impact of the recycling plant on the amenity of future occupiers. During the course of the application further noise assessments have been submitted and the applicant has altered the site layout to address noise from the recycling centre. The acoustic mitigation package now includes;
- Retention of the 3m height close boarded acoustic fence around the western and southern boundary and to the western boundary of plot 44. - Acoustic glazing and Positive Input Ventilation for units affected by road traffic and industrial noise. - Reorientation of plots 37 to 43 so that gardens face east and are now screened by the houses providing acoustic benefit to the garden areas and also a ‘relatively quiet façade’ as mentioned in BS8233:2014
Page 95 - Change of house type for plots 38 to 43 to Weaver. This house type has no noise sensitive rooms on the façade overlooking the recycling site so internal living areas are located on the quieter façade. - Removal of plot 36 (directly to the north of the recycling site)
The noise assessment supporting the revised layout confirms that: - When assessed using BS4142:2014 (Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound) all garden areas are shown as a “low impact”. (Garden areas of plots 34 and 35 are shown as having a “less likely to cause significant impact” however these gardens are located beyond the recycling site) - All residential private garden areas fall beneath the WHO / BS8233:2014 recommended noise level of 50 dB(A) LAEQ-16 Hour - All internal noise levels, with windows closed fall beneath the requirements of BS8233:2014 for living rooms, dining rooms and bedrooms. - Positive Input Ventilation is provided in all habitable rooms with an optional “summer cooling boost” function
In respect of road traffic noise (units closest to Seaford Road) it is noted that, with windows partially open there will be a small exceedance of the required internal noise levels. However with respect to relatively anonymous road traffic noise, there is evidence people will be more tolerable in exchange for the choice to open windows if required.
With respect to industrial noise habitable rooms have been relocated to the quietest façade available at each property. This will allow windows to be opened for ventilation at the choice of the occupant. Whilst occupants may, on occasion, be disturbed by noise from the recycling site it is the view of the City’s Environmental Consultant that this is far less likely than earlier iterations of the layout and is now acceptable.
Finally, with respect to bedrooms it is considered windows should remain openable in all cases, as the recycling yard does not operate through the night.
Based on the current layout and subject to a suite of planning conditions the City’s Environmental Consultant has removed their objection to the application.
Planning Obligations
Policy DEV5 of the UDP 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.
The NPPF at paragraph 54 sets out that planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition.
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF and Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 states that planning obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) explains the city council’s approach to the use of planning obligations. The site sits within two value areas; a Mid to High value area and a Low value area.
In accordance with paragraph 4.22 of the SPD the affordable housing and planning obligation requirement should relate to the value area in which the majority of the site lies, which in this case is the Mid-High Value Area.
The SPD advises that a development of this nature in this part of the City should contribute towards affordable housing, open space and education. Public realm and transport/highways improvements may also be sought on a case by case basis.
Affordable Housing –
The NPPG states that ‘Where there is an overall increase in floorspace in the proposed development, the local planning authority should calculate the amount of affordable housing contributions required from the
Page 96 development as set out in their Local Plan. A ‘credit’ should then be applied which is the equivalent of the gross floorspace of any relevant vacant buildings being brought back into use or demolished as part of the scheme and deducted from the overall affordable housing contribution calculation. This will apply in calculating either the number of affordable housing units to be provided within the development or where an equivalent financial contribution is being provided.’
The existing building has a floorspace of 125,000ft2, the floorspace of the new development totals 94,656ft2. Therefore the existing floorspace exceeds that of the proposed and as a result should the applicant meet the other criteria as set out in the guidance and assessed below, then there will be no requirement for affordable dwellings on the site.
The NPPG is clear that Vacant Building Credit (VBC) should only apply where the building has not been abandoned, taking into account all of the relevant circumstances: the condition of the property the period of non-use whether there is an intervening use; and any evidence regarding the owner’s intention
The applicant has confirmed that the site has been vacant since 2009, when British Vita vacated the site. Marketing details provided as part of the 2015 application (Ref 15/65806/OUT) which identified that although marketed for an extended period there were no serious enquiries for letting the site due to a range of commercial reasons. As discussed earlier in the report the applicant is still maintaining this position that there has been little interest in the potential lettings and the LPA have no information to refute this. In addition we are aware that the building is still on the business rating list, also the applicant has employed a security firm to manage the vacant premise and has undertaken some remediation works on the site.
The guidance also sets out that the LPA should consider: Whether the building has been made vacant for the sole purposes of re-development. Whether the building is covered by an extant or recently expired planning permission for the same or substantially the same development.
The first application for residential development on this site was made in 2015 which was 6 years after British Vita vacated the site. In this 2015 application it was concluded that the site was not vacated for the sole purpose of re-development. Due to a legal agreement never having been completed, a decision on the 2015 application has not yet been issued and there is also no other extant or recently expired planning permission for residential development on the site. The LPA are comfortable that the building has not been made vacant for redevelopment.
Therefore vacant building credits are applicable to this case.
Open Space -
UDP policy H8 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 contained within Supplementary Planning Documents, and this provides the basis for proving that an open space obligation is required to make the development acceptable.
In line with UDP policy H8 and the planning obligations SPD an open space contribution is being sought as the proposed housing development would create additional demand for open space facilities and therefore appropriate provision for formal and informal open space will be required, together with its ongoing maintenance. As on-site provision is not proposed, a sum of £622,246 has been calculated in line with OB2. The SPD formula approach ensures that the level of contribution sought from developments is fair and reasonable in scale and kind to the development.
The LPA cannot guarantee when any planning obligations will be secured from the scheme, given there is three years to implement the planning permission and it is not known how long the development will take to build out if S106 payments are staged. Taking this into account with the potential unknown funding and implementation strategies of infrastructure projects the following off-site projects have been chosen to provide the LPA with flexibility on spending the S106 monies for open space.
1) Bolton Road Playing Fields
Page 97 Bolton Road Playing Fields are located 1,760m walking distance from the site. This facility provides a strategic split-level sports pitch site (football), which also includes a bowling green, children’s play area and outdoor gym. The site has been identified as a recipient of part of the open space contribution for sports facilities where there is no maximum walking distance.
The Open Space chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2019), that supports the Salford Greenspace Strategy SPD, identifies estimated costs of over £200,000 for access and infrastructure improvements. Some of the monies sought from this development could be spent on improving over 3350sqm of footpaths and hard surfaces (including off-road parking), installation of knee rails, boundary reinforcement and also lighting with necessary cabling. The total costs for these works are in the region of £485,000.
Additionally, the Salford Playing Pitch Strategy (reviewed 2018) identifies Bolton Road Playing Fields as requiring significant investment for the pitches and changing rooms in excess of £500,000.
2) Albert Park
Albert Park is 1,120m walking distance from the site. This is a district park; the local recreation standard requires residents to be within 3,200m walking distance of this type of facility. Therefore this is considered to be directly related to the development.
The Open Space chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2019) that supports Salford Greenspace Strategy SPD identifies estimated costs of £200,000 (excluding additional costs for the biodiversity projects).
Monies could be directed towards a replacement Neighbourhood Equipped Play area within the Albert Park which is expected to cost in the region of £126,000. An outdoor gym is also proposed for a budget of £50,000. In addition to investment in facilities, a network of safe and accessible footpaths to enable people to reach the new facilities is required. A sum of £24,000 is required to bring the footpaths up to modern access standards.
3) Green Grosvenor Park
Green Grosvenor Park is 960m walking distance from the site. This is a Neighbourhood Park, the local recreation standard requires residents to be within 1,200m walking distance of this type of facility. Therefore this is considered to be directly related to the development.
The Open Space chapter of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2019) that supports Salford Greenspace Strategy SPD identifies estimated costs of £165,000 (excluding additional costs for the biodiversity projects).
The refurbishment requirements Green Grosvenor are comparable to Albert Park with a reduced overall figure due to the play area being a locally equipped area for play rather than a neighbourhood equipped area. In addition, with the park being constructed fairly recently the infrastructure improvements required are reduced.
Education –
Given the provision of dwellings on this site the development would generate an additional requirement for school places. In line with the SPD policy OB3 formulas a developer contribution of £140,641.60 has been sought towards the expansion of primary schools. The SPD formula approach ensures that the level of contribution sought from developments is fair and reasonable in scale and kind to the development. The application site lies within the pupil planning area (Area 10 – Broughton & Kersal) as shown below:
Page 98 The planning areas are set by the Local Authority but have to go through rigorous scrutiny by the Department of Education (DfE). The current forecast for area 10 below, shows we will be tight on Primary places by 21/22 as we are legally required to carry at least 8% surplus in each area.
Area 10 - Broughton & Kersal Schools in area 7 Year PAN Forecast - Reception +/- % -/+ -/+ Places per school 2019/20 270 248 22 8.1% 3 2020/21 270 216 54 20.0% 8 2021/22 270 246 24 8.9% 3 2022/23 270 248 22 8.1% 3 2023/24 270 250 20 7.4% 3
In order to meet educational needs in line with the SPD contributions are sought from housing development. The use of pupil planning areas allows the Local Authority to have flexibility to invest any contribution at a strategic level in order to deliver best value.
Transport -
As detailed in the highway section of the report the applicant has agreed to cover the cost of the MOVA (£45k) which will be secure through S106. In addition bus stop improvements and dropped kerb with tactile paving at junctions of Welford Street and at junctions of Coniston Street will be secured by S278. There cost is expected to be in the region of £18,000.
Financial Viability -
Page 99 The applicant has stated that they are not able provide the entire package of mitigation as meeting these obligations would not be financially viable. The applicant has, therefore, submitted a viability appraisal to support their position. During the course of the application the applicants have offered a total sum of £150,000 towards the mitigation.
Para 57 of the NPPF states that ‘Where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions expected from development, planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate whether particular circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage. The weight to be given to a viability assessment is a matter for the decision maker, having regard to all the circumstances in the case, including whether the plan and the viability evidence underpinning it is up to date, and any change in site circumstances since the plan was brought into force. All viability assessments, including any undertaken at the plan-making stage, should reflect the recommended approach in national planning guidance, including standardised inputs, and should be made publicly available’.
The Planning Obligations SPD recognises that there will be some circumstances where it may be appropriate for the value of any planning obligation to be lower, or for there to be no obligation at all. One example of this is where the viability of development would otherwise be compromised and the benefits of development outweigh any negative impacts that would normally be addressed through a larger commuted sum.
The viability appraisal and its inputs have been assessed by the Council’s Estates Team. The following matters have been agreed between the parties; construction costs, external works, contingency, professional fees, abnormal costs and finance costs. In respect of professional fees and finance costs the Councils Estates Team have compromised, in the spirit of moving the discussions forward and adopted the higher figures that the applicant has put forward.
The following three areas have not been agreed and are the areas of dispute.
Gross Development Value – A major point of contention is the yield based upon the rental income. A lower yield equals a higher development value. The applicant has presented their case that a 6.5% yield is reasonable and supported this by evidence showing a yield of between 4% – 5.3% for PRS apartments explaining that these comparitors are prime city centre locations and therefore this site is likely to attract a higher yield. The Councils Estates Team recognises that there is limited evidence for bespoke build to rent housing developments in this type of location, but consider the development to be more attractive than represented by a 6.5% yield. Therefore, the Council’s Estates Team have for illustration purposes carried out the assessment using a 6% yield and is of the opinion that this is at the realistic level given the site’s location. The site includes apartments and will also benefit from demand from the local student population.
Benchmark Land Value - The Council’s Estates Team does not accept the benchmark land value adopted by the applicant, as in their opinion it does not properly reflect the level of contamination on site. Paragraph 012 of NPPG requires abnormals and total policy requirements (ie the S106) to be taken into account when assessing the benchmark land value. This has not been reflected in the applicant’s calculation when submitting an offer for the site.
In addition the applicant has adjusted the existing use value by 30%, the maximum uplift envisaged by guidance to arrive at a land value which, in the view of the Council’s Estates Team, is higher than the proposed residential use.
Developers Profit Level – The applicant has stated that they require 11% profit whereas a typical developers profit is usually between 8 – 10% for this type of development in the current market and the Council have applied for illustration purposes the upper limit of this range at 10%. This is in part because risks associated with PRS are lower than those with an open market development. This value has not been agreed by the parties, however as the Council’s Estates Team have assumed a higher Gross Development Value the actual sum is not significantly different comparing the difference between the two parties.
It is our conclusion that when adopting our values into a development appraisal that the development could afford to contribute £1.415mn. However, the policy ask is less than this at £807,887.60 as this would mitigate the open space, education and highway impacts of the development. The reduced sum of £150,000 as put forward by the applicant, without sufficient evidence to support their case that the obligations can be reduced or waived, is therefore considered to be contrary to DEV5 and H8 of the UDP, the Planning Obligation SPD and the NPPF.
The Planning Balance
Page 100 The application would bring a heavily contaminated site back into use and would also deliver a significant number of houses which would help to meet the City’s housing need. However, as the City Council currently has a housing land supply for 11.1 years (that is, in excess of 5 years), the ‘tilted balance’ required by paragraph 11 of the NPPF does not need to be applied.
The site does achieve an efficient use of the land given the housing numbers proposed and, although separation distances are below the recommended distances in some limited cases and car parking does dominate parts of the proposed site, on balance, for the reasons set out in the main body of the report, the layout and design is considered acceptable.
Notwithstanding the above positive aspects of the scheme, the introduction of the dwellings will increase pressure on local amenities and services. There is a clear and robust policy basis for requiring contributions which are appropriate in scale and kind to mitigate those impacts. Although viability evidence has been presented by the applicant, and this has been the basis of extensive discussions over several months, the Council’s Estates team do not accept some of the figures proposed. The applicant’s offer falls £657,887.60 short of what is considered necessary and achievable to allow the site to come forward for development. This shortfall would result in significant harm to the provision of local amenity and services and, therefore, the benefits of the scheme are not considered to outweigh this harm, particularly as the evidence is not considered to support a reduced contribution.
Recommendation
Refuse for the following reason:
1. The application would bring a heavily contaminated site back into use and would also deliver a significant number of houses which would help to meet the City’s housing need. However, as the City Council currently has a housing land supply for 11.1 years (that is, in excess of 5 years), the ‘tilted balance’ required by paragraph 11 of the NPPF does not need to be applied.
The site does achieve an efficient use of the land given the housing numbers proposed and, although separation distances are below the recommended distances in some limited cases and car parking does dominate parts of the proposed site, on balance, the layout and design is considered acceptable.
Notwithstanding the above positive aspects of the scheme, the introduction of the dwellings will increase pressure on local amenities and services. There is a clear and robust policy basis for requiring contributions which are appropriate in scale and kind to mitigate those impacts. The applicant’s offer falls significantly short of what is considered necessary and achievable to allow the site to come forward for development. This shortfall would result in significant harm to the provision of local amenities and services and, therefore, the benefits of the scheme are not considered to outweigh this harm, particularly as the evidence is not considered to support a reduced contribution.
The proposal is therefore contrary to DEV5 and H8 of the UDP, the Planning Obligation SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Page 101 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5f PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL PART I SECTION 1: APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
APPLICATION No: 19/73721/REM APPLICANT: English Cities Fund (ECF) LOCATION: Plots C1 and C2, Salford Central master plan, Trinity Way, Salford PROPOSAL: Reserved matters (scale, appearance, landscape, access and layout) of Plot C1 relating to a 23-storey building comprising ground floor commercial unit, 211 apartments and associated facilities WARD: Ordsall
Description of site and surrounding area
The subject site is located on the southern side of Trinity Way, Salford. Irregular in shape and measuring 0.6 hectares, the site fronts the River Irwell to the south and the Ordsall Chord is located a short distance to the west.
The site forms part of Zone AC of the Salford Central master plan area together with adjacent land to the north- east. This zone is to be developed in accordance with Planning Permission 16/68325/OUT and the related Development Schedule (refer overleaf).
To the east of the site stands three multi-storey residential towers built in accordance with the master plan. Beyond these buildings stands the Grade II listed ‘Irwell Street Bridge’. To the north-west of this, and adjacent to the subject site, stands a multi-storey car park also built in accordance with the master plan.
Page 103 To the north of the site, across Trinity Way, stands a railway viaduct. This viaduct extends to Salford Central Railway Station to the north-east and Middlewood Locks and beyond to the west. The Ordsall Chord connects with this viaduct immediately opposite the site.
To the west of this connection stands the Grade II listed 'Railway Viaduct over the River Irwell leading to Lower Byrom Street Warehouse' and, adjacent to this, the Grade I listed ‘Railway Bridge over the Irwell to the ormer Liverpool Road Station’. Beyond this stands the Grade II listed 'Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway Viaduct, Manchester and Salford'. These three listed bridges and The Ordsall Chord together connect Deansgate with Salford Central and rail lines extending westward.
The site itself is currently vacant and enclosed by hoardings and security fencing. This fencing extends along much of the Trinity Way frontage and leads to a new public open space which will, when complete and open, provide access over the River Irwell to Manchester city centre.
Description of proposal
This application follows the granting of Planning Permission 16/68325/OUT (refer overleaf) and seeks approval for the matters reserved by that permission as these relate to Plot C1. This includes the scale, layout and appearance of the proposed building, access arrangements and the landscape treatment of the site.
Whilst Plot C1 forms part of a larger holding together with Plot C2, this application relates to Plot C1 only. A separate application will be submitted for an associated building upon Plot C2 in the future. For the time being this plot will act as temporary open space only as shown below.
Figure 1: Proposed site layout plan
The proposed building would comprise a six storey podium and 23 storey tower. The eastern gable end of the podium would feature art work. This work would remain visible only until such time as Plot C2 is developed.
Page 104 Figure 2: Indicative images of proposed gable end art work
The podium would also feature a roof top amenity space. It is anticipated this space would link with the future tower to be constructed upon Plot C2.
Figure 3: Proposed podium amenity space
The proposed building would stand to a maximum height of 23 storeys and comprise 211 apartments. Of these, 86 (or 41%) would comprise one bedroom and the remaining 125 (or 59%) would comprise two bedrooms. One bedroom apartments would typically measure 44 square metres and two bedroom apartments 66 square metres (and not less than 62 square metres).
The ground floor level of the building would feature a commercial unit or, if considered unviable, a resident’s gym, plus ancillary facilities, service areas and bicycle store comprising 48 parking spaces.
Though no car parking spaces would be provided on site, a vehicle access way would extend along the northern property boundary adjacent to Trinity Way. This access way would allow for drop offs only and terminate at the western end of the building. Access to the adjacent turning head would be controlled and limited to service and delivery vehicles only.
The building façade would feature large scale aluminium panels, the vertical elements of which would be folded. All windows would be full height to maximise daylight and views. These windows would be setback behind the outer walls of the building in order to create a sense of depth and, in turn, shading.
This basic treatment would also be applied to the future adjacent tower to be built upon Plot C2. This will ensure that the development presents as a single coherent whole.
Page 105 Figure 4: Façade detail
Figure 5: The development as viewed from the River Irwell. The proposed tower is shown in the foreground. A separate application will be lodged for the rear tower (Plot C2)
Page 106 Figure 6: The proposed development as viewed from the riverside walkway approved by Planning Permission19/73149/FUL.
Figure 7: Indicative section of riverside walkway approved by Planning Permission 19/73149/FUL
Publicity
Notices: Displayed on site on 4 July 2019 Reason: The development may affect the settings of nearby listed structures
Press advert: Manchester Weekly News, Salford Edition, 11 July 2019 Reason: The development may affect the settings of nearby listed structures
Page 107 Neighbour notification
Notice of the application was sent to 217 surrounding properties on 1 July 2019.
Representations
One representation was received in response to the application. This representation is considered to be neither a clear expression of support nor an objection, as follows:
. The site is sustainably located and this development will make a positive contribution to the local economy and the city's residential offer; . Additional balconies should be provided in order to improve future resident's quality of life; . Commercial spaces should be provided at ground floor level, in particular along the riverside frontage of the building; . Any proposed riverside walkway should be bought forward together with this development (Planning Permission 19/73149/FUL was issued on 19 June 2019. As previously noted, this permission allowed the construction of a new towpath adjacent to the site and extending to the Irwell Street Bridge to the north-east and the Ordsall Chord to the south-west); and . Efforts should be made to make Trinity Way more pedestrian friendly. This roadway should present as an active boulevard rather than an unwelcoming dual carriageway.
Site history
Planning Permission 09/57950/EIAHYB allowed the comprehensive redevelopment of Salford Central. This permission divided the area into zones (A - L). Each zone, in turn, comprises numerous plots.
Planning Permission 16/68325/OUT was issued on 25 May 2017. This permission superseded 09/57950/EIAHYB as it relates to Zones A and C only. Like 09/57950/EIAHYB, 16/68325/OUT allowed the comprehensive redevelopment of these zones. This includes buildings standing to a maximum height of 33 storeys (or 100 metres), up to 843 dwellings and a variety of commercial uses (Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1 and D1).
Importantly, Condition 7 of 16/68325/OUT introduces the Development Schedule in accordance with which each plot within the area (now known as ‘Zone AC’) must be developed. This Schedule was later amended by 18/72788/NMA and sets out maximum building envelopes (heights and footprints) and preferred uses.
Consultations
The following responses have been received from consultees -
. Drainage - The site is located in Flood Zone 2 and as such there is a risk of surface water flooding here. Flood resilience measures are required and a condition to this effect should be included upon any permission issued. Site levels should not be altered within one metre of boundaries and finished floor levels should be at least 300mm above surrounding ground levels. Surface water discharge rates should not exceed 50% of the existing or greenfield equivalent, whichever is the greater. Surface water should be discharged in the most sustainable way, which in this case might include direct into the River Irwell. This would be a more sustainable outcome than discharging into the public sewer system.
. Environment Agency (EA) - On the basis the site is located in Flood Zone 2, the Local Planning Authority should apply the EA’s standing advice.
. Environmental Health Officer –
o Air: The submitted air quality assessment satisfactorily addresses the relevant requirements of 16/68325/OUT. o Noise: The submitted noise assessment satisfactorily addresses the relevant requirements of 16/68325/OUT.
Page 108 o Land contamination: The submitted ground investigation report satisfactorily addresses the relevant requirements of 16/68325/OUT.
. Greater Manchester Archaeological Advisory Service (GMAAS) - There was very little historical development in this area up until 1880 when the canal network was extended. As such, the site is of limited archaeological value and no further investigations are required.
. Highways - Though concerns were originally raised with regard to the submitted Travel Plan and various technical details (including the relationship of outward opening doors with publically accessible spaces), these issues have now been resolved and/or will be resolved in accordance with recommended conditions. This includes refuse collection arrangements and the need to ensure that these do not impact upon pedestrian safety and do not affect the general amenity of the immediate surrounding area.
Whilst the Highways Officer has also stated that a greater number of bicycle parking spaces should be provided on site, the proposed number of spaces (one for every 4.4 apartments) complies with the provisions of the Salford UDP and as such is acceptable.
. United Utilities (UU) - Though UU have advised that certain drainage-related conditions should be included on any permission issued, it is noted that these conditions already apply in accordance with 16/68325/OUT. Importantly, UU have also advised that a public sewer crosses the site and that a six metre wide access strip may be required around this (three metres either side of the centre line). Alternatively, this sewer could be diverted.
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 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 MX1 - Development in Mixed-use Areas This policy states that a wide range of uses and activities (housing, offices, tourism, leisure, culture, education, community facilities, retail, infrastructure, knowledge-based employment) are permitted within the identified mixed use areas (Chapel Street East. Chapel Street West, Salford Quays, Ordsall Lane Riverside Corridor).
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.
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 DES6 - Waterside Development This policy states that all new development adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal will be required to facilitate pedestrian access to, along and, where appropriate, across the waterway. Schemes should incorporate a waterside walkway with pedestrian links between the walkway and other key pedestrian routes and incorporate
Page 109 ground floor uses and public space that generate pedestrian activity. Where it is inappropriate to provide a waterside walkway, an alternative route shall be provided. Development should protect, improve or provide wildlife habitats; conserve and complement any historic features; maintain and enhance waterside safety; and not affect the maintenance or integrity of the waterway or flood defences. All built development will face onto the water, and incorporate entrances onto the waterfront; be of the highest standard of design; be of a scale sufficient to frame the edge of the waterside; and enhance views from, of, across and along the waterway, and provide visual links to the waterside from surrounding areas.
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 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.
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 at 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 H8 - Open Space Provision Associated with New Housing Development 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 Retained Policy R2 and relevant Supplementary Planning Documents.
Unitary Development Plan E3 - Knowledge Capital This policy states that a Knowledge Capital will be developed, focusing upon the “Arc of Opportunity” around the University of Salford. The provision of financial and professional services and other office based uses; creative, cultural and media industries; communications; research and development; and higher education will be emphasised.
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 and Motorcycle Parking in New Developments 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 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
Page 110 obligations may be used to protect, enhance or manage to facilitate the movement of flora and fauna where development is permitted.
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 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 CH2 - Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building This policy states that development will not be granted that would have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building.
Unitary Development Plan R5 - Countryside Access Network This policy states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would result in the permanent obstruction or closure of any part of the Countryside Access Network, unless an alternative route is provided that is equally attractive and convenient. New development that is proposed on a site needed for the provision of a new route or link as part of the Countryside Access Network will be required to incorporate that route/link as part of the development.
Other Material Planning Considerations
National Planning Policy
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
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 - Design and Crime The design and crime supplementary planning document is used to help assess and determine planning applications and is intended to guide architects, developers, landscape architects and urban designers in designing out crime.
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.
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.
Planning Guidance - Flood Risk and Development
Page 111 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.
Other documents
The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (GMSF) Draft 2019 and the Revised Draft Local Plan 2019 were recently put out to public consultation. These plans will soon progress further before being adopted towards the end of 2020/early 2021.
Now that the GMSF and Local Plan are published documents, some weight can be given to the provision of each. As this weight however depends upon the stage of each plan, unresolved objections and consistency with Government policy, it is currently limited. The weight given moving forward will be reviewed and is likely to depend upon the extent to which there remain unresolved objections.
Appraisal
Following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) it is now necessary to consider the weight which can be given to the policies of the Council's development plan.
It is considered that those policies of the plan relevant to this application can be afforded due weight given the criteria of each is consistent with the related policies of the NPPF.
The principle of the development
The principle of the proposed development was previously established by Planning Permission 16/68325/OUT (as amended by 18/72788/NMA). This NMA enshrines the most recent version of the Zone AC master plan Development Schedule in accordance with which this application must be assessed.
This Schedule shows that upon the subject plot an apartment building standing to a maximum height of 23 storeys (or 73 metres) may be constructed. In addition to this, a new public open space, pedestrian links to the River Irwell and riverside walkway should also be provided.
Importantly, the maximum footprint of the permitted building should not exceed 1,795 square metres and the maximum total floor area should be no more than 33,814 square metres. In addition to this, a maximum of 392 apartments may be provided upon this plot and the adjacent Plot C2.
The proposed building accords with these basic parameters. To this end, the building would stand to a maximum height of 23 storeys (or 72.5 metres) and comprise 211 units only. The remaining 181 units permitted on site will, in the future, be provided upon the adjacent Plot C2. For the time being this plot will act as temporary open space.
Given the proposed building accords with the Schedule, the key issues for consideration are the matters reserved by 16/68325/OUT, being the scale and appearance of the proposed building, the landscape treatment of the site and access/layout arrangements. These matters must be considered alongside other technical matters, including the potential amenity effects of the development. These matters are discussed in turn below and overleaf.
Scale, layout and appearance
Retained Policy DES1 of the Salford UDP states that development will be required to respond to its physical context, respect the positive character of the local area in which it is situated and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness. In addition to this, Retained Policy DES4 states that development adjoining (or in this case creating) public space shall be designed to have a strong and positive relationship with that space...
Consideration must also be given to the provisions of Retained Policy DES6 which states that all new development adjacent to the River Irwell …will be required to facilitate pedestrian access to, along and, where appropriate, across the waterway… This provision is complemented by Retained Policy R5 which seeks to ensure that new development does not obstruct movement along the Countryside Access Network (including the new walkway approved by 19/73149/FUL extending along the River Irwell).
Page 112 The proposed development will not only facilitate access to the River Irwell, but also includes a generous element of public space linking directly with the adjacent approved riverside walkway. To this end, the proposed development accords with the provisions of Retained Policy DES6 and, in turn, assists in enhancing the adjacent element of the Countryside Access Network, as required by Retained Policy R5.
Importantly, on the basis that the ground level river frontage of the building will be largely activated, a strong and positive relationship with adjacent public spaces and the riverside walkway will be created in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy DES4.
As previously noted, the scale and form of the proposed building complies with the Schedule and as such is acceptable in principle. Whilst the eastern gable end of the podium will remain exposed for the foreseeable future, this will be treated in a manner which will create added visual interest. To ensure this, it is recommended that a condition be included on any permission issued requiring details of this treatment to be submitted for further assessment. This treatment will be required to be retained until such time as the adjacent Plot C2 is developed.
In addition to the aforementioned policies and the Schedule, consideration must also be given to the potential impacts of the proposed building upon nearby nationally listed structures.
Retained Policy CH2 of the Salford UDP states that planning permission will not be granted for development that would have an unacceptable impact on the setting of any listed building. This is consistent with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which states that ‘special regard’ should be given to the preservation of listed buildings and their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest.
Paragraph 193 of the NPPF complements this. This paragraph states that when considering the impacts of development, great weight should be given to the conservation of designated assets. Paragraph 195 states that where the harm caused is considered to be substantial, permission should not be granted. In accordance with Paragraph 196 however, where the harm caused is considered to be less than substantial, this should be weighed against the public benefits of a scheme.
Given the substantial separation distances which would exist between the proposed building and nearby designated assets, it is considered that the development would cause less than substantial harm to these structures. Importantly, the proposed building also reinforces the emerging built form character of the immediate surrounding area and Salford Central in general. This new built form character seeks to capitalise upon the sustainability credentials of the area and, in turn, generate social, environmental and economic benefits.
By accommodating a substantial number of new residents in close proximity to the amenities, facilities and employment opportunities located within the immediate surrounding area, the development generates certain benefits. These benefits are necessary in support of a scheme such as this and, in accordance with Paragraph 196 of the NPPF, must be weighed against any harm caused to nearby heritage assets.
It is considered that the aforementioned benefits, together with the public open space to be provided on site and the improved access arrangements to the River Irwell and the Countryside Access Network, clearly outweigh any residual harms caused to nearby heritage assets. As such, the development complies with the provisions of Paragraph 196 of the NPPF.
Importantly, it is considered that the aluminium cladding to be applied to the building also complements the character of nearby remnant industrial buildings as well as that of the new Ordsall Chord. In accordance with Condition 22 of 16/68325/OUT, details of this cladding, as well as all other external materials/finishes, are required to be submitted for further assessment. This is considered particularly important here given the prominence of the building and the need to ensure its finer grain detailing adequately complements nearby heritage assets.
Landscape treatment of site
Retained Policy DES9 of the Salford UDP states that developments will be required to incorporate appropriate hard and soft landscaping and that this must reflect and enhance the character of the area…
Page 113 Whilst an illustrative landscape master plan has been submitted in support of the application, the applicant has requested that a condition be included on any permission issued requiring the submission of a detailed plan. This is to ensure that the landscape treatment of the site can be finalised in association with the riverside walkway approved by Planning Permission 19/73149/FUL and also the public realm works to be provided adjacent to the site by Network Rail in association with the Ordsall Chord.
Importantly, the site abuts a wildlife corridor (the River Irwell) and as such the provisions of Retained Policy EN9 of the Salford UDP apply. 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.
Though the site abuts the River Irwell, the proposed development will not encroach upon it and as such would not impede the movement of flora and fauna. Importantly, the site was previously developed and recently cleared and as such is of limited ecological value. To this end, the site does not also act as a stepping stone between adjacent environments and the wildlife corridor. Given this, it is considered that the development accords with the objectives of Retained Policy EN9.
Access and highways matters
Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that applications for planning permission should only be refused on highways grounds where the residual impacts of a development are considered to be severe.
In addition to this, Retained Policy A8 of the Salford UDP states that development will not be permitted where it would ….have an unacceptable impact on highway safety …by virtue of traffic generation, access, parking or servicing arrangements…
Importantly, Condition 25 of 16/68325/OUT requires the submission of a Travel Plan in support of reserved matters applications such as this. Though the Council’s Consultant Highways Officer raised concerns regarding the content of the original Travel Plan, it is considered that the amended plan submitted in response to these concerns is now generally acceptable. To this end, this plan details when travel surveys will be undertaken and the locations of walking/cycling routes and bicycle shops in close proximity to the site.
Though the Consultant Highways Officer also originally raised concerns regarding refuse collection arrangements, outstanding issues have also now been resolved. Whilst the refuse store and collection point remain some distance apart (65 metres), building management will now be required to transfer bins as necessary for collection. This circumvents the need for refuse vehicles to pass alongside the rear of the building and, in turn, safeguards pedestrian access along the adjacent shared space.
Importantly, all bins will be transferred to the collection point immediately prior to allocated collection times only and returned to the refuse store as soon as practicable afterwards. This will assist in ensuring that resulting residual amenity effects are limited.
Whilst a condition would ordinarily be included upon any permission issued requiring the submission of a Construction Method Statement (CMS), Condition 42 of 16/68325/OUT already requires this. As such, it is not necessary to again include this requirement upon any approval now granted.
Other technical matters
Dwelling mix
Policy HOU1 of the Council’s Housing Planning Guidance states that in this area apartments are the most appropriate form of housing. This is on the basis that the site is located within the bounds of the Regional Centre and is highly accessible.
Policy HOU2 states that where apartments are preferred, a broad mix should be provided. This includes in terms of both overall unit size and the number of bedrooms. Importantly, the majority of apartments should comprise two or more bedrooms and measure no less than 57 square metres.
Of the 211 proposed apartments, 86 (or 41%) would comprise one bedroom and the remaining 125 (59%) would comprise two bedrooms.
Page 114 Whilst policy also requires the provision of three bedroom apartments on site (typically 5 - 10% of the total number of units), the applicant has advised that the future adjacent tower upon Plot C2 also forming part of the site and this planning unit, will comprise three bed apartments. On the basis that the two towers will together feature 392 units, a minimum of 20 three bedroom apartments (5% of the total number) will be required upon the adjacent plot.
In terms of unit size, it is noted that all two bedroom apartments will measure no less than 62 square metres. This exceeds the minimum requirements of Policy HOU2 (57 square metres) and, in turn, allows for the future adaptation of apartments to suit the changing needs of occupants as required.
On the basis that the proposed unit mix and apartment sizes comply with policy and the future adjacent tower upon Plot C2 will comprise the necessary three bedroom apartments (minimum of 20), the development complies with the aforementioned provisions of the Council’s Housing Planning Guidance and as such is acceptable in dwelling mix terms.
Amenity impacts
Retained Policy DES7 of the Salford UDP states all new development …will be required to provide 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 the occupiers or users of other developments.
Importantly, the provisions of Retained Policy DES7 should be considered in the context of the immediate surrounding area, the intention of Planning Permission 16/68325/OUT and the building forms it permits.
Notably, in inner-city locations such as this, residents should expect a reduced level of amenity. This includes in terms of the extent of outlook which may be possible from habitable room windows and the extent of overshadowing from surrounding buildings. These impacts are a direct result of the larger building forms encouraged in accessible locations such as this.
Page 115 Notwithstanding the generally higher building forms advocated here by the master plan, future residents of the proposed building would, until such time as Plot C2 is developed, benefit from long range views and increased outlook. This is a direct result of the relative isolation of the site and the resultant distances to surrounding larger forms, the nearest of which is some distance to the east. The River Irwell, Trinity Way and adjacent railway infrastructure otherwise ensure that larger forms could not be constructed in close proximity to the site. This again safeguards the long range outlook of future residents.
Whilst Plot C2 will in the future accommodate a sizeable form, this will nevertheless be setback from the proposed building behind the podium. Given this, adequate visual relief will exist between the two forms.
It is considered that the internal configuration of the proposed apartments is also generally acceptable. As previously noted, all two bedroom apartments will exceed the minimum space requirements of the Council’s Housing Planning Guidance. In addition to this, a number of apartments will also feature either useable or Juliette balconies. These features will further add to the amenity value of the apartments and also allow for natural ventilation.
The requirements of 16/68325/OUT (as amended by 18/72788/NMA) will further safeguard the internal amenity of future residents. To this end, Conditions 35 - 40 seek to ensure that the proposed building is appropriately attenuated in accordance with accepted standards and that appropriate mechanical ventilation systems are installed.
The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has advised that the noise assessment submitted in support of this application satisfactorily addresses the requirements of Conditions 35 - 40 and as such is acceptable.
Importantly, Condition 17 of 16/68325/OUT requires the submission of a wind assessment in support of reserved matters applications such as this. The assessment submitted in support of this application shows that wind panels will be provided adjacent to certain open spaces on site. These panels will mitigate the adverse effects of stronger south-westerly winds in particular and ensure that the local wind environment remains comfortable when sitting, standing or walking through the site.
Land contamination
Retained Policy EN17 of the Salford UDP states that in areas where existing levels of pollution exceed local or national standards, planning permission will be granted for environmentally sensitive developments only 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.
Condition 27 of 16/68325/OUT requires the submission of a land contamination assessment in support of a reserved matters application such as this.
The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the submitted assessment and advised that it satisfactorily addresses the requirements of Condition 27 and as such is acceptable.
Drainage
Retained Policy EN19 of the Salford UDP states that development …will not be permitted where it would …be subject to an unacceptable risk of flooding, materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere or result in an unacceptable maintenance liability for the city council or any other agency in terms of dealing with flooding issues.
Condition 29 of 16/68325/OUT already requires the submission of a surface water drainage scheme. In addition to this, Condition 31 requires foul and surface water to be drained on separate systems and Condition 32 requires the submission of a drainage management and maintenance plan. To this end, conditions restricting surface water run-off rates and requiring flood resilience measures only need be included upon any permission now issued. Together with the aforementioned conditions of 16/68325/OUT, these measures will assist in ensuring that the development is not subject to an unacceptable risk of flooding and will not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN19 of the Salford UDP.
Page 116 Sustainability
Condition 14 of 16/68325/OUT requires the submission of an energy and sustainability report in support of reserved matters applications such as this.
The report submitted together with this application sets out the strategy that will be employed to reduce carbon emissions and enhance energy efficiencies. This strategy is described as the ‘lean, mean and green approach’ and is defined as follows:
. Lean - The use of advanced building modelling software and passive construction techniques; . Mean - The use of high-efficiency systems and effective design controls; and . Green - The use of renewable energy sources to achieve carbon emissions targets and provide desirable benefits.
In practice, this includes the following measures/initiatives:
. Enhanced insulation systems, including high performance windows; . Increased air tightness to reduce heat loss/gain; . The orientation of windows to maximise solar access; . The use of variable speed drives to control the output of circulation pumps and mechanical ventilation systems as required in response to demands at particular times; . The installation of energy efficient LED lighting; . The use of automatic presence detection systems; and . The installation of solar and/or photovoltaic panels.
Planning obligations
Planning Permission 16/68325/OUT is subject to an associated legal agreement signed in accordance with Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This agreement requires developers to pay all profits realised over a certain percentage into a Development Trust Account (DTA). This account is managed by the Council and is used to subsidise the redevelopment of less profitable plots within the master plan area. Typically, profits are put towards the provision of public realm works and/or affordable housing.
Importantly, all profits are secured outside the planning assessment process and are in lieu of the contributions which would otherwise be required in association with the Council’s Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
Recommendation
It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the following plans:
. Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0003, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed site plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown; . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0100, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed ground floor GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0101, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 01 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0102, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 02 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0103, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 03 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2);
Page 117 . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0104, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 04 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0105, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 05 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0106, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 06 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0107, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 07 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0108, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 08 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0109, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 09 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0110, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 10 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0111, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 11 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0112, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 12 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0113, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 13 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0114, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 14 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0115, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 15 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0116, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 16 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0117, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 17 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0118, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 18 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0119, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 19 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0120, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 20 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0121, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 21 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0122, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed Level 22 GA plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2);
Page 118 . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0123, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed roof plan’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0210, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed C1 tower south east elevation’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown; . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0211, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed C1 tower south west elevation’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown; . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0212, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed C1 tower north east elevation’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown; . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0213, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed C1 tower north west elevation’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown; . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0214, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed C1 podium east elevation’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown; . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0215, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed C1 podium north elevation’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown; . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0216, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed C1 podium south elevation’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown; . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0301, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed site section A’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0302, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed site section B’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); . Dwg. No. SALC-HBA-C1-00-DR-A-PL20_0311, Revision P4 entitled ‘Proposed C1 section C’ dated May 2019 and prepared by Hawkins Brown (excluding references to the future building to be built upon Plot C2); and . Dwg. No. 203, Revision B entitled ‘Levels and drainage - general arrangement plan’ dated 23 May 2019 and prepared by HED Landscape Architects and Urban Designers.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
2. Prior to the commencement of above ground works, the applicant shall submit to and have approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, details of the art work to be applied to the eastern gable end wall of the podium. These details shall include a depiction of the image(s) to be applied together with its (their) finishes, colours and any required lighting.
The agreed treatment shall be applied prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved and shall remain in place until such time as any approved building upon the adjacent Plot C2 is commenced.
Reason: To ensure the appropriate finish and presentation of a notable feature of the building in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy DES1 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
3. The development hereby approved shall feature the flood resilient construction measures necessary to safeguard the building and its occupants from the levels predicted during a 1:1,000 year flood event.
Reason: To limit the impacts of flooding in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN19 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
4. The surface water discharge rate shall not exceed 50% of the existing or greenfield equivalent, whichever is the greater.
Reason: To limit the risk of flooding on site and elsewhere in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN19 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
5. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be generally in accordance with Dwg. No. HED.1320.C1.103, Revision C entitled ‘Illustrative master plan’ dated 1 May 2019 and prepared by HED
Page 119 Landscape Architects and Urban Designers and include:
. All hard surfaced areas and materials; . External lighting; and . Planting plans, specifications and schedules (including plant sizes, species and numbers/densities).
All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with an approved scheme for timing/phasing. This scheme should take into account the timing/phasing of the redevelopment of adjacent plots, the delivery of the riverside walkway approved by Planning Permission 19/73149/FUL and the public realm works to be provided adjacent to the site by Network Rail in association with the Ordsall Chord.
All vegetation planted in accordance with this condition which is removed, uprooted, destroyed, dies or becomes severely damaged or seriously diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees/shrubs of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives its consent in writing to a variation.
Reason: To ensure that the site is satisfactorily landscaped having regard to its location and the nature of the proposed development in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policies DES1 and DES9 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
6. The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the noise assessment submitted with the application entitled ‘Salford Central, Zone C, Phase 1, Noise Assessment for Planning Purposes’ (reference P3617/R2e/AGB), dated 13 May 2019 and prepared by Hannan Associates, Acoustic and Engineering Consultants Limited.
Reason: To safeguard the general amenity of future residents in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
7. The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the air quality assessment submitted with the application entitled ‘Salford Central, Plots C1/C2, Air Quality Assessment’ (reference 70040945-001), dated April 2019 and prepared by WSP.
Reason: To safeguard the general amenity of nearby occupiers and the future residents of the building in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
8. The development hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the ground investigation report submitted with the application entitled ‘Salford Central, Zone C, Interpretive Ground Investigation Report’ (reference 70040945-GIR-002), dated June 2019 and prepared by WSP.
Reason: To safeguard the general health and well-being of construction operatives and future residents of the building in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
9. Within six months of the occupation of the development hereby permitted (or alternate timeframe as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority), an updated Travel Plan in accordance with the provisions of the Interim Travel Plan entitled ‘Salford Central, Plots C1/C2’ (reference 70040945-ITP) dated September 2019 and prepared by WSP, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This updated Plan shall include further details of the incentives that were offered to residents upon occupation (such as maximum term public transport tickets and/or bicycle coupons). The agreed Plan shall be implemented and reviewed as required in accordance with a timetable embodied therein.
Reason: To encourage more sustainable and active forms of transport in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policies ST14 and A8 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
10. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, bollards or similar shall be installed adjacent to all outward opening emergency exit doors. These bollards or similar shall not encroach upon any roadway bounding the site or impede the flow of vehicles in any way.
Page 120 Reason: To safeguard pedestrian/cyclist access along footways surrounding the building in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy DES2 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
11. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the applicant shall submit to and have approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a Refuse Management Scheme (RMS). This RMS shall confirm the frequency of collections and who will be responsible for these (whether it be private or Council collections or both), a plan showing the precise location and extent of the refuse collection point and confirm that:
. Building management will transfer all bins to the collection point immediately prior to allocated collection times only; . Building management will return all bins to the refuse store as soon as practicable after collection; . No bins shall otherwise be left outside the refuse store at any time; and . Refuse collection vehicles will not reverse down Stanley Street at any time other than short distances to enable their exit from the site.
All refuse collection practices shall comply with the agreed scheme at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure appropriate refuse collection arrangements are in place and to safeguard pedestrian access around the building in accordance with the provisions of Retained Policy A2 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Notes to applicant
1. The applicant is reminded that, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as amended, it is an offence to remove, damage or destroy the nest of a wild bird while the nest is in use or being built. Planning consent does not provide a defence against prosecution under this Act. If a bird’s nest is encountered or suspected work should cease immediately and a suitably experienced ecologist employed to advise how best to safeguard the bird(s).
2. Please note the advice of United Utilities as set out in its consultation response dated 29 July 2019 and available for viewing on the Council’s electronic case file.
Page 121 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5g
APPLICATION No: 18/72443/FUL APPLICANT: West One Residence Ltd LOCATION: 621 Eccles New Road, Salford, M50 1EP, PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building, erection of a nine-storey residential building containing 140 units and a six-storey office building with parking provision, amenity space, landscaping and associated works. Resubmission of 17/70933/FUL. WARD: Weaste And Seedley
Description of Site and Surrounding Area
The subject site is located on the southern side of Eccles New Road, Salford. The western portion of the site is currently occupied by a single-storey industrial building and associated car parking whilst the eastern part is vacant. Surrounding land upon the southern side of Eccles New Road is used for a variety of commercial and industrial purposes. Land to the north, across Eccles New Road, is used for residential purposes. This includes rows of two-storey terraces and more recent three-storey residential buildings.
Beyond this is the M602. This motorway extends to Salford Central and Manchester to the east and to Worsley and beyond to the west. The Metrolink also extends along Eccles New Road and provides direct access to Manchester city centre to the east and Eccles to the west. Bus Route Nos .27 and 33 also extend along Eccles New Road. These services provide direct access to Salford Central and Manchester to the east and Eccles, Swinton and Worsley to the west.
Development Description
Original Scheme The proposal originally consisted of demolishing the existing onsite building and the erection of a mixed-use development comprising of 107 residential apartments, employment uses (Use Class B1) and 7 live/ work units (Sui Generis use) together with parking provision and amenity space to the rear and associated works. This is the resubmission of a proposal that was withdrawn in February 2018 (planning reference 17/70933/FUL). More specifically planning was sought for a part 9 storey, part 7 storey building. The building fronted Eccles New Road and was articulated around the site to the north, east and west side leaving the south side open for car
Page 123
$i5yss5vd.docx parking for residents and visitors as well as delivery access for the units. All servicing and access for vehicles would have been via Falcon Close to the rear of the development.
Amended Scheme The original scheme was considered unsuitable for reasons of design, quantity of parking and functionality of the B1 use. Through detailed discussion the scheme has been amended to amount to demolition of the existing building and erection of a nine-storey residential building and a six-storey office building. The proposal now comprises 140 apartments and 1,133.7sqm of office space with 79 parking spaces. The residential mix takes the form of 12 studios; 47 one-bedroom apartments; 73 two-bedroom apartments; 2 two-bed duplexes; and 6 three-bedroom units.
The residential building will be located to the eastern portion of the site with the 9 storey element situated on the corner of Eccles New Road and Falcon Close, which is where the main entrance is located. The office accommodation is situated adjacent to the neighbouring waste transfer building, part of Salford city council environmental services. The design approach has been to integrate the scheme with a modern material palette consisting of bronze cladding, grey brick and floor to ceiling glazing. All glazing will be a dark grey powder coated Aluminium. A raised landscaped garden is proposed above the car park to the rear and on the seventh floor. Secure bins stores and cycle shelters will also be provided to the rear.
Publicity
Initial Publication
Site Notice: Non HH Site notice departure Date Displayed: 9 October 2018 Reason: Article 13 Wider Publicity
Press Advert: Manchester Weekly News Salford Edition Date Published: 4 October 2018 Reason: Article 15 Standard Press Notice
Re-publication
Site Notice: Non HH Site notice departure Date Displayed: 1 August 2019 Reason: Article 13 Wider Publicity
Press Advert: Manchester Weekly News Salford Edition Date Published: 8 August 2019 Reason: Article 15 Standard Press Notice
Representations
Notification letters were sent to immediate neighbours on the 25.09.2018 with a reply by date of the 16.10.2018. Six responses were received, which can be summarised as follows:
Lack of parking – resulting in cars being parked on neighbouring streets compounding an existing problem with employees of Turnpike House; The development would restrict access to the Golf Centre and the construction phase may prevent customers accessing the car park; The pelican crossing, T-Junction, tram lines, double yellow lines and cycle lanes will be impacted by this development and the development itself will only add even more restriction to this area; and, Concern raised regarding the security of Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) site of Falcon House due to the proposed layout.
Councillor Wilson has made the following comments:
There are only 36 car parking spaces in total for 107 apartments and 54 B1(office) units, this is not in line with the recommended number of parking spaces and as a result it will impact neighbouring residents;
Page 124
$i5yss5vd.docx The neighbouring area already has an issue with parking and as such there are a number of TRO's in place to tackle the issue of parking; There are insufficient accessible spaces for the number of apartments and B1 units; and, The lack of parking for this proposed development will have a detrimental effect for neighbouring residents and businesses.
Notification letters were sent to immediate neighbours on the 30.07.2019 regarding the amended plans and alternative description with a reply by date of the 20.08.2019. Four responses were received, which can be summarised as follows:
The development would introduce harm to highway safety in terms of an increase in the number of vehicle trips and lack of parking; Concerns over limited parking would put pressure on parking at Sheader Drive, which may result in the landlord introducing a fee paying scheme to owners; The submission does not contain a construction management plan, service management plan or details concerning noise from fixed plant & equipment associated with commercial use; TFGM previously requested that applicants ensured no opening windows yet the revised plans detail opening windows & balconies; The proposed layout will allow possible ‘run up’ distances for vehicles from various points from within the proposed development site towards Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) site of Falcon House; and, The construction period may cause problems for the operations at Falcon House. For example, systems within the building will be affected by vibrations or heavy plant movement. Therefore, the Council is requested to apply a condition requiring a construction management plan and method statement, including details of timing and method of construction.
Relevant Site History
17/70933/FUL Demolition of existing on site building and erection of proposed mixed use development comprising of 246 residential apartments and 7 retail units together with parking provision to the rear. Application Withdrawn - 20 February 2018
12/61297/FUL Erection of 2.4m high palisade fence and gates. Approved on 15.02.2012
08/56933/OUT Outline planning application for development of land for residential purpose with all matters reserved. Finally Disposed of on 29.07.2013.
08/56255/OUT Outline planning application for development of land for residential purpose with all matters reserved. Refused on 30.05.2008
07/55251/OUT Outline planning application for the layout and means of access of two buildings comprising 44 apartments with a ground floor retail unit. Withdrawn on 18.10.2007
06/51964/OUT Outline planning application for the siting of two buildings comprising 59 apartments and alteration to existing vehicular access. Refused on 31.03.2006
Consultations
United Utilities Water Ltd - No comments received to date
Design For Security -
Page 125
$i5yss5vd.docx Recommend that a condition is put in place which reflects the recommendations made within section 4 of the Crime Impact Statement (Dated:30/07/2018 | Ref:2017/0697/CIS/01). A condition should also be put in place to ensure that the proposal is built to Secured by Design standards and that they achieve Secured by Design accreditation.
Senior Drainage Engineer - No objection subject to condition.
Air Quality, Noise, Contaminated Land - No objection raised with regards to air quality, noise and contaminated land.
Landscape Design - Full details are required for the soft and hard landscape proposals including full planting specification and schedule. The applicant include street tree planting to Falcon Close to maximise the sites green infrastructure potential. The sustainability checklist states that the applicant has incorporated SuDS into the landscaping, driveways and any hard surfacing. Evidence of this is required.
Highways - The Local Highway Authority (LHA) have no objection to the proposed development subject a parking review, car park management plan, motorbike and cycle parking provision, surfacing improvements, traffic regulation order concerning Falcon Close, a waste management plan, travel plan, improvements to public realm, redundant access points reinstated to footway and construction environmental management plans secured by way of condition or legal agreement.
Senior Drainage Engineer - No objection subject to condition.
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 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 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 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 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 DES10 - Design and Crime
Page 126
$i5yss5vd.docx 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 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 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 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.
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 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.
Other Material Planning Considerations
National Planning Policy
National Planning Policy Framework
Local Planning Policy
Page 127
$i5yss5vd.docx 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 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 - Established Employment Areas This document contains a number of polices that promotes sustainable economic growth, which both enhances prosperity and reduces inequalities. The document encourages the provision of a wide range of employment opportunities, having regard to evidence based conclusions on need and demand.
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 - 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: the provision of open space; improvements to the city’s public realm, heritage and infrastructure; the training of local residents in construction skills; and the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions.
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.
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.
Analysis
Principle
Employment Uses
The site falls within the Eccles New Road employment area and meets the definition of an established employment area identified in the reasoned justification to Saved UDP Policy E5. Paragraph 8.40 of the reasoned justification to policy E5 clarifies that an established employment area is defined as site(s)/buildings(s) that are currently used, or where vacant were last used, for non-retail employment uses, and fall within one of the following categories:
any area with five or more adjacent business units; any continuous site area of 0.5ha or greater; or any building(s) with a floor area of 5,000 square metres or greater
Page 128
$i5yss5vd.docx The redline boundary comprises of two sites; 615 Eccles New Road and 621 Eccles New Road. 621 Eccles New Road is associated with a former vehicle repair body shop and yard which falls within a Class B2 employment use. Given this, it is necessary to demonstrate compliance with UDP policy E5.
615 Eccles New Road sits adjacent to the body shop premises and it is understood that this was originally the site of a church (All Saints) and a Sunday school before the buildings were demolished and replaced with a social club (Use Class D2). Although clearly part of the wider employment area, the land was not last used for non-retail employment uses, and so therefore having regard to the definition of employment areas in the reasoned justification to policy E5, the provision of policy E5 would not be applicable to this part of the site.
Criterion 1 of saved policy E5 describes 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 employment uses. Policy EMP2 of the Established Employment Areas SPD provides further guidance in relation to this part of the Saved UDP Policy, adding that regard should also be had to the potential future use of neighbouring sites for employment purposes.
The site in question is situated within a large employment area, with surrounding employment uses. The uses immediately surrounding the site include a golf shop, Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) counting centre and a Council depot. Beyond that are light industrial / warehouse units, many with ancillary retail and public access functions. Within the original letter of representation received from RBS, they raise concern regarding ‘run up’ distances within the development towards Falcon House allowing speed and the necessary force to penetrate the site boundary; the parking area not being secure leaving pedestrians/residents vulnerable; and, the vibrations of construction could disturb equipment.
The layout plan has been amended to incorporate a security barrier across the access. In addition, a brick wall to the southern boundary and a high level kerb to prevent vehicular entrance via high speed run-ups to Falcon House. A condition concerning a construction management plan is recommended; the standard condition has been amended to require details concerning timing and method of construction to ensure the operations of the neighbouring business are not disturbed during the construction period.
The building closest to the Council depot to the west would house offices (non-sensitive use) providing a physical barrier between the industrial use (Council depot) and the proposed residential property. The applicant has outlined within the Planning Statement that the heavier industrial uses in the wider area are located some distance away to the south and therefore their ability to impact the residential occupants and for the residential use to constrain such operations is limited.
In respect of criteria 2 of the policy, it is only criterion 2a that could be applicable in this instance; ‘the developer can clearly demonstrate that there is no current or likely future demand for the site or building for employment purposes’. Policy EMP3 of the Established Employment Areas SPD provides further detail regarding the issues that would need to be addressed to justify a proposal under this criterion.
The Employment Land Statement identifies that 621 Eccles New Road was marketed from March 2017 when the occupiers (The Bodyshop Manchester) fell into receivership. This included site boards, a marketing brochure containing the site particulars, a mailing campaign, and also website listings including property databases (paragraph 5.2.1). The Statement goes on to state that the site was sold to the present owners in November 2017 after 6 months of marketing. The interest during the 6 months the site was marketed up to its sale is described as “limited”, although no further details of this limited interest have been provided.
The Employment Land Statement at paragraph 5.2.3 goes on to state that the current owners acquired the adjoining 615 Eccles New Road at the same time as they acquired 621 Eccles New Road, and then immediately tried renting the whole of the site being considered through this planning application. In February 2018 commercial property consultants WT Gunson were employed and the premises offered in the market place on a ‘To Let’ basis with new promotional signboards, marketing particulars and comprehensive mailing to occupiers and commercial property agents and live requirements held on their database. The Statement concludes that despite this marketing, “a tenant has not been identified to occupy the premises and this clearly demonstrates there is little demand for this type of space in this location”.
Page 129
$i5yss5vd.docx A significantly greater level of detail around the marketing activities that have taken place should normally be provided. It is also apparent that the site has only been marketed for rent, rather than for sale as well, and this may have constrained interest in the site. In this regard, the marketing details provided fall short of the requirements of part 2 of Policy EMP3 of the Established Employment Areas SPD. The conclusion that there is little current demand for employment use does not appear to reflect:
The site was sold to the current owners following a period of marketing for employment use Employment space is being included within the proposed scheme, and so therefore the applicant must consider that there is a demand for such use
Notwithstanding the above conclusions regarding a lack of demand for employment uses having not been adequately justified, the proposed development does incorporate 1,133.7sqm of office (B1 employment) use. The former employment floorspace across the whole of the application site was 722sqm with this being in B2 use. A B1 use being proposed is considered to be an appropriate use in employment areas, as set out in Policy EMP1 of the Established Employment Areas SPD. It is clear that there would be a significant increase in the intensity of the employment use of the site with the potential to provide a much larger number of jobs than when the site was in use as a B2 former vehicle repair body shop and yard. Additionally B1 uses would complement other activities in the employment area.
The principle of a mixed used scheme with the level of employment floorspace identified above is considered to be acceptable in this particular instance. However, to ensure the office use is delivered, a condition requiring that the residential use is not occupied until the office building is available for occupation is recommended.
Sequential Test
Use class B1 includes offices, which are a main town centre use. Therefore, town centre sequential considerations in part 7 of the NPPF are relevant. The site identified is regarded as ‘edge of centre’ having regard to the definition in the glossary to the NPPF that describes that, for office uses, this includes locations outside the town centre but within 500 metres of a public transport interchange.
The Weaste Metrolink stop is 300 metres to the east of the site and there are bus stops around 200 metres to the west. The Eccles New Road employment area has a number of strengths including the range of accommodation it provides and its proximity to Salford Quays. The provision of secondary office accommodation within the area could perform a supporting role to the higher density and higher value accommodation within the Quays itself. Given this, and the sites proximity to a Metrolink station, no objection is raised in respect of the sequential approach to town centres.
Residential Uses
Having regard to the above, the site is considered to be suitable for a mixed use scheme of employment floorspace and residential development. The site is brownfield land which is promoted by the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (NPPF) and is in an accessible location given very good access to Metrolink and bus routes. Regard is had to the air quality and noise in relation to residential amenity further on within the analysis.
UDP policy H1 requires that all new housing developments will be required to contribute towards the provision of a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of type and size. Policy HOU1 of the housing planning guidance states that within the part of the city where the proposed development is located, new developments should provide a broad mix of dwelling types. Apartments should only be the predominant form of provision on sites in the most accessible locations within Central Salford. An alternative approach may be acceptable having regard to criteria A to H of UDP policy H1.
The site is situated within an accessible location, around 300 metres from Weaste Metrolink station and on a main bus route. Considering this, 140 apartments as part of a mixed use scheme would be deemed appropriate subject to appropriate design.
Page 130
$i5yss5vd.docx Policy HOU2 of the housing planning guidance requires that where apartments are proposed they should provide a broad mix of dwelling sizes, both in terms of the number of bedrooms and the net residential floorspace. Small dwellings (i.e. studios and 1 bed apartments) should not predominate, and a significant proportion of 3 bedroom apartments should be provided wherever practicable. Paragraph 4.31 of the reasoned justification clarifies that the majority of apartments should have two or three bedrooms, with a floorspace typically 57 square metres or above. An alternative approach may be acceptable having regard to criteria A to H of UDP policy H1.
The accommodation schedule sets out that there would be 140 units overall, 59 studio and one-bed apartments (42%), 74 two-bed apartments (54%) and 6 three-bed apartments (4%). All of the two-and three bed apartments are in excess of 57sqm. Given this, the proposed development would be in accordance with policy HOU2 as small dwellings would not predominate.
Conclusion
The proposed mixed use development would result in an acceptable proportion of employment space to resolve the requirements of policy E5 with the recommended occupation condition in place. The development as currently proposed is unlikely to compromise the operating conditions of other remaining employment uses within the surrounding area. The concerns raised by RBS concerning their asset to the rear have been resolved. The residential aspect of the proposal would be an efficient use of the site within a sustainable location, in accordance with the NPPF, and would provide a range of accommodation in accordance with policy H1. Therefore, the proposal is complaint with the aforementioned policy.
Design
At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Sustainable development can be achieved through the planning system navigating three objectives that are interdependent. One of these objectives refers to providing a strong, vibrant and healthy community by ensuring a well-designed and safe built environment. This philosophy is interwoven with the need to provide development in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity and protecting and enhancing our built environment.
Paragraph 124 of the NPPF outlines that the ‘creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.’ Good design is indivisible from good planning. More specifically, development should function well and add to the overall quality of the area; be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and layout; sympathetic to local character; establish or maintain a strong sense of place; and, create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users (para 127, NPPF 2018). The NPPF (2018) states that ‘permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.... (para 130, NPPF 2018).
The original scheme Design must respond positively to local context and contribute towards local identity and distinctiveness (saved UDP policy DES 1). Originally the development concerned a large bulky long block with two wings of poor design detail within close proximity to the streetscene. A large building such as this should be set back from the footway with sufficient distance to provide a setting for the development and avoid the building dominating the streetscene; approximately 1.3m does not achieve the necessary setback for such a building. Nor is there any room to provide a landscape buffer to the front of the property, which many neighbouring units benefit from, creating an attractive and interesting frontage. The proposal would have provided a very dominate building creating a hard edge to Eccles New Road. The front doors of the proposed live/work units provided a degree of activity at street level. However, without sufficient servicing arrangements their full potential being realised was unlikely.
Saved policy DES 2 requires that pedestrians can easily orientate themselves and navigate their way through an area. The commercial entrance and indeed the portion of the building allocated for this use is not visually distinguishable from the residential portion of the building. Therefore, the architecture of the building would not have provided any visual clues for those accessing the commercial side of the development limiting the ease of movement around the development that would have deterred potential occupiers.
Page 131
$i5yss5vd.docx It was unclear from the submission how the proposed units would be serviced and operated. The units at the ground floor would not have had any external opening doors for delivery; there was limited access to the units for delivery vehicles; the only door to the car park wass via steps; lack of adequate bin storage; no visitor or employee parking; the units near Eccles New Road could not be accessed via vehicle; and, the lack of flexibility of the units to adapt to varying uses within the B1 class. Considering this, the deliverability of the scheme for employment purposes was questionable.
Saved policy DES 7 requires that all new development provide potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity, in terms of space and layout. The proposed garden platform was likely to be underused as it was divorced from the building so would not fulfill its purpose leaving the development with a substandard provision of amenity space. The staircase to this platform would have provided a bird’s eye view of the gardens associated with the live/work units. The circulation to the rear of the building was poor, which was further compounded by limited access to the cycle store and bins.
Amended scheme Since submission the proposal has evolved to address the concerns identified above. The development has been separated into two buildings that have been designed for their intended use. The commercial building is now proposed solely for office use, due to the practicalities of providing a logical layout that would facilitate a wider B1 use.
Both properties would be set within the same building line, approximately 2.3m from Eccles New Road. Developing the scheme this way has reduced the bulk of the development and created an attractive and interesting frontage. Furthermore, there is now an opportunity for a landscaped frontage, which would further soften the proposal and introduce some much need greenery to this side of Eccles New Road.
The residential property has two wings with a recessed centre. In terms of massing, the building would vary between 7, 8 and 9 stories. The eastern wing would step up from the 6 storey office building to 8 stories with a step down to 7 stories between the wings and a rise to 9 stories at the western portion. Massing across the site would ramp up from 6 stories to 9, which breaks down the bulk of the development and facilitates height without overwhelming the immediate environment. The 9 storey wing is positioned on the corner of Eccles New Road and Falcon Close, which is considered appropriate and logical position for this height within the scheme.
The bottom potion of the development within the wings would consist of full height glazing, which is a light material that blends well with the dark brickwork to the floors above. Within the middle potion of the building the structure would be finished with a bronze cladding that also weaves through the main façade around the fenestration detail. The use of materials, including the detailing around the fenestration, provides a balanced and attractive frontage.
With regards to the interaction with Falcon Close, the proposed entrance to the residential block would be on this corner with communal space providing activity. To the south of Falcon Close, the level of activity would reduce due to the location of the bin and cycle store that are so situated for residential convenience; with particular reference to the cycle store to encourage residential take-up. If Falcon Close becomes more active in the future due to other developments, this could lead to the element of blank walling to the ground floor becoming more obvious. However, this would provide future developments with the opportunity to address Falcon Close within this area without impacting upon amenity. The Landscape officer has suggested that trees to the Falcon Close frontage would be beneficial from a place making perspective; a condition concerning a feasibility study regarding this matter is recommended.
The same materials are repeated through the office block but have been utilized in a different fashion to provide a commercial appearance. The purpose of this is so that the public can discern the uses of the buildings and navigate themselves accordingly. The office block has been designed with a large proportion of glazing to the frontage with the bronze cladding providing fenestration detail in large rectangles to the middle portion of the building and brick columns to the ground floor.
To provide activity at street level within the residential building, the development includes two duplex units that have front doors off Eccles New Road that are positioned within the recess to allow for a small element of defensible space. The defensible space would be separated from the streetscene and communal space via
Page 132
$i5yss5vd.docx boundary treatment, which would be the subject of any forthcoming condition. However, care will need to be taken with regards to the boundary treatment to avoid a twee appearance.
The proposed garden platform is now attached to the building and a number of the units to the first floor would have direct access. This mixed access arrangement is intended to enhance social-cohesion through encouraging take up of the amenity space and facilitating social interaction. Privacy and separation would be achieved through a high quality landscape scheme, which would be sought through condition. Access to the wider building would be provided by a walkway to the southern end of the podium. To enhance privacy from potential neighbouring development should RBS vacate their property in the future a tall balustrade made of opaque glass should be required through condition.
The majority of the apartments would be of a reasonable size and have floor to ceiling high windows, which would provide a high standard of amenity. The studio apartments are positioned on a corner to the rear of the property so the bedroom areas of these units would have limited amount of natural light entering them. However, the living areas do have a reasonable standard of natural light and the size of the unit meets national standards. Therefore, on balance, given the limited number of these units, the studio apartments are acceptable.
Design for Security
The development would provide additional activity, overlooking and surveillance to the area. The applicant submitted an amended crime impact statement with the latest scheme due to the significant alterations between schemes, which was undertaken by Greater Manchester Police. The design of the development is considered appropriate with a small number of recommendations for improvement.
The statement recommends that the access to the car park should be restricted by a gate. The proposed ground floor plan does illustrate a gate preventing access to the rear of the building, car park and amenity space. Access to the allocated office parking is further restricted by a separate barrier. To ensure that these barriers provide the necessary security and that those accessing the office would not undermine the security of the residential block, a condition concerning the security measures and strategies to be employed across the site is recommended.
The report also recommends appropriate lighting within the car park and pedestrian areas, which could be controlled via condition. In order to ensure the landscaping scheme proposed for the development does not undermine the security of the site a robust landscape condition is recommended.
With the necessary conditions in place, the development has been designed to ensure it does not increase opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour in accordance with UDP Policy DES10.
Conclusion
The amended proposal has responded to officer concerns and is now considered to offer a positive design solution that responds positively to the local context and the needs of the uses proposed. The massing, design detail and layout would enhance the character and appearance of the streetscene and would take full advantage of the opportunities to re-develop the site to provide a high standard of urban design. The proposal also provides a high standard of accommodation for future residents.
Highway Safety
The NPPF sets out within paragraph 108 that any significant impacts from the development on highway safety should be adequately mitigated against. Paragraph 109 states that ’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.’
UDP policy A2 states that development proposals 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. Policy A8 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact upon
Page 133
$i5yss5vd.docx highway safety. Policy A10 of the UDP requires development to make adequate provision for disabled drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists, in accordance with the Council’s minimum standards.
Parking Provision
Vehicular access is proposed from Falcon Close. Originally the on-site parking provision would have amounted to 36 on-site car parking spaces, which includes 3 disabled bays, for the whole development. However, the supporting Transport Assessment (TA) provided an element of confusion due to quoting different levels of parking form the submitted plans (33 spaces) and stating that 6 of these spaces would be ‘designated to the retail element of the proposals’. However, the proposal did not incorporate any retail spaces so it was unclear if the intention was to allocate 6 spaces to the employment use or whether inclusion of this statement/ figure was in error.
Parking provision has been one of the key issues concerning the development. The Local Highway Authority (LHA) accepts that parking provision has a part to play in supressing demand and encouraging the use of non- car modes as an alternative to owning a car. The introduction of parking maximums rather than minimums, as they were, was intended to encourage greener travel and in turn reduce congestion and improve air quality.
It is recognised, however, that there is a balance to be had between providing excessive levels of parking and not providing enough, with the latter potentially causing issues on roads adjacent to developments. Different ratios of parking spaces to apartments have been accepted across the city, with the level that is considered appropriate on each occasion being based on the accessibility of that particular development site. Given that Eccles New Road is a bus corridor, provides the tram connection between Eccles, Salford Quays and Manchester city centre and forms part of National Cycle Network (NCN) route 55, the site can be considered accessible.
The latest scheme would provide a total of 79 parking space; 42 residential spaces and 37 office spaces. The residential parking ratio is equal to approximately 1 space for every 3 apartments. In locations on the edge of Manchester city centre and within Media City the LHA have accepted lower ratios than this and equally in less accessible areas have requested more. The proposal is considered appropriate for this location.
The level of provision proposed for the employment element is in excess of the SCCs current standards (SCCs UDP 2004-2016 – Saved Policies); however, experience from other sites in this area suggests that this may be appropriate. Whilst public transport connections from this location to the key employment areas such as Media City and Manchester city centre are good, the locality does not have a transport hub that can provide alternatives to car travel for those coming across the borough.
Given the concerns around the parking provision for this site and current issues that the LHA are aware of with overspill parking in this area, a parking study was requested as part of the planning submission. The findings of the parking study undertaken by the applicants are contained in Section 7 of the Transport Assessment and conclude that there are areas of unrestricted road side parking available in the area should demand exceed on- site provision on occasion.
Whilst some of these locations are considered more acceptable/ likely to be used than others the general principle is accepted that there are safe opportunities to park outside of the site. Should the occurrence of this be regular and cause nuisance/ implications on highway safety the LHA request a contribution of £9,000 from the applicant to allow the Council to undertake a review post-occupation of the site. The requested sum would allow interventions (restrictions/ resident parking permits, etc.) to be introduced should they be considered necessary. The TA confirms acceptance of this request at paragraph 7.6.4. In addition to this, the requirement for a Car Park Management Plan (CPMP) condition is recommended to confirm how visitors arriving by car to the both the resident and employment elements site would be accommodated.
The proposed number of bays allocated to disabled badge holders is compliant with SCCs requirements and therefore considered acceptable for both the residential and employment elements (a total of 4 spaces). There is currently no area allocated on site for motorcycle parking. Whilst SCC current standards suggest that such provision for flats and apartments should be provided based on Individual Consideration and the requirement for B1 land use is a minimum of two, it is requested that the same number be provided for the residential element. A condition concerning the quantity, location and method of security is recommended.
Page 134
$i5yss5vd.docx Capacity Assessment
TfGM have confirmed that the latest TA satisfactorily addresses earlier concerns raised in their consultation response, dated 16th October 2018. Whilst TfGM do comment that the (inaccurate) reporting of existing congestion levels is likely to cause unnecessary alarm, this is a criticism of the modelling and not a concern relating to the impact that the development is forecast to have on the highway network. The table below (extracted from the TA) shows the number of car trips that the site is forecast to generate in both the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peaks.
The LHA consider this to be a robust assessment, as no allowance has been made in the interrogation of the TRICs database and adoption of the derived trip rates to reflect the restricted level of parking for the residential element and the accessible location of the site (i.e. a worst case scenario). Notwithstanding the fact it is considered that the forecasted development trips are on the high side, the assumed increase in traffic through the adjacent junctions is less than 30 two-way trips during the peak hours. This is a common threshold, under which capacity assessment is often not requested due to limited impact such a number of trips is considered to have. Despite this, the junctions of Eccles New Road/ B5228 and Hessel Street and A57 Eccles New Road/ Stott Lane have both been tested in the TA, in addition to the Falcon Close access.
The capacity assessment carried out considers the future year 2023 without and with the development in place. Negligible changes in the operation of the junctions are reported (Table 6.2 of the TA) as a result of the proposed development. Although small increases in delay and queue lengths are reported these are considered negligible and should, in reality, be reduced further through the active promotion of the requested Travel Plan, encouraging less car use. Assessment of the Falcon Close junction which provides access to the site shows that this would operate within capacity with no queuing predicted in either the AM or PM peak. The LHA are comfortable that this is accurate.
Site Layout and Access
The TA shows that a visibility splay of 2.4m x 43m can be achieved from Falcon Close without reliance from land which falls within the site boundary. Therefore, access from Falcon Close is considered acceptable. Carriageway surface and footway improvements would, however, be required to Falcon Close to ensure that vehicles and pedestrians can safely access the site. The TA acknowledges that these works are required at paragraph 3.4.2, which is recommended to be secured by way of condition.
A traffic regulation order would be required on Falcon Close to prevent vehicles parking here and restricting access to the car park. Evidence suggests that double parking can occur on this stretch of road which could have implications on the ability for service and emergency vehicles accessing the site if not prevented.
The internal layout has been designed to facilitate delivery and waste collection vehicles and allow them to enter the site, turn around and exit in a forward gear. It is envisaged that waste collection would be undertaken by a private waste management company. Vehicles will enter the site via Falcon Close and request permission to enter via the gated access point(s). The proposed servicing strategy identified in Section 3.5 of the TA is considered acceptable but should be contained within a Waste/ Servicing Management Strategy to be secured by condition. This approach would ensure that non-compliance with the intended strategy is enforceable.
The proposal incorporates 128 cycle parking spaces; 88 of these for the residential element, which exceeds SCCs current standards, and equates to 63% (spaces/ apartment). An additional 20 spaces are proposed for
Page 135
$i5yss5vd.docx visitors of the apartments, taking the total provision for this element to 108, or 77%, offsetting the fact only 30% of the apartments would have a parking space. The employment element would be allocated 20 spaces, which exceeds the requirement set out in SCC UDP and so is considered acceptable. Whilst the proposed number of cycle spaces is considered acceptable, a condition concerning the type of provision to be provided is recommended to ensure that all spaces can be easily and safety accessed. A further condition is sought to ensure the delivery of the showers and changing facilities for cyclists within the office building.
TFGM previously requested that the development should not have any opening windows on the Eccles New Road side due to proximity to the Metro infrastructure. On receipt of the amended plans TfGM were re- consulted and they have commented that any opening windows or balconies must by 2.75m back from any infrastructure. It appears from the plans that this is achievable but the applicant has been asked to provide additional evidence to demonstrate that this will be the case. An update on the matter will be provided via an update report.
Active Travel
The latest TA addresses comments made previously by the by both the LHA and TfGM in relation to the lack of an audit undertaken on the existing pedestrian and cycle infrastructure. This is covered in Section 3.6 of the TA with further detail on what amenities are located within the generally recognised acceptable walk/ cycle distances from the site.
It is considered appropriate for the development to contribute to Public Realm improvements considering the additional demand the development would place on the area. The use of any contribution would improve the pedestrian and/ or cycle infrastructure in the area, which would encourage the use of non-car modes of transportation. However, the affordability of any contribution has been assessed under a viability appraisal that has concluded that a contribution would render the proposal unviable. Notwithstanding this, the development would provide other mechanisms (cycle parking and travel plan) to encourage the use of sustainable methods of travel.
Conclusion
The proposed development would provide 79 car parking spaces; 4 of those are allocated disabled parking bays. Considering the identified need within the area for residential parking, the provision supplied by other residential and employment sites and the policy requirements, the proposal is considered adequate in this regard. With the suggested conditions, the proposal would be acceptable with regards to layout, service arrangements and encouraging sustainable travel.
Environmental Protection / Residential Amenity
UDP Policy EN17 seeks to ensure that development does not cause or contribute towards a significant increase in pollution to the air (including dust pollution), water or soil, or by reason of noise. The proposed development is not considered to introduce harm in these regards subject to conditions, as discussed below. Therefore, the proposal complies with policy EN17.
According to paragraph 127 of the NPPF (2018) development should provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. UDP Policy DES7 states that development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupiers or users of other developments
Air Quality
The development lies partially within the Greater Manchester Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and as such introduces new sensitive receptors into an area where air pollution (nitrogen dioxide – NO2) is known to be above EU and UK health based limit values. It is further acknowledged that for particulate pollution (PM10 and PM2.5) there is no safe threshold with respect to the impact on human health. Given this, there is a potential for future occupants to be exposed to levels of air pollution (Nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter) which will give rise to a negative impact on health and quality of life. The application is supported by an air quality impact assessment, uses detailed dispersion modelling, verified against local monitoring, to assess whether there will
Page 136
$i5yss5vd.docx be a significant impact of the development against IAQM and EPUK guidance “Land-Use Planning and Development Control: Planning for Air Quality”, 2017.
The development incorporates a modest 36 parking spaces and 70 cycle spaces. The transport consultants estimate the development will result in an additional 412 additional vehicle trips on the highway network. Compared to the volume of traffic in the vicinity this is considered insignificant. The assessment has included these vehicles in the dispersion modelling undertaken to predict NO2 concentrations at the façade of the new development, which can be used to determine whether air pollution is likely to affect the health of future occupiers. The assessment concludes that concentrations of NO2 at the development will be significantly below the health based limit value of 40 µg/m3 at all locations, and as such air pollution in this location is not a constraint to this development.
The explanation for this is due to the distance of the proposed building from the road. It is known that levels of NO2 decrease rapidly as the distance from the road increases, so whilst the development is within the boundary of the AQMA, it is accepted that not everywhere within the AQMA is above the limit values.
The report also considers construction affects including dust generated during the construction process, concluding that with adequate mitigation, the impact will not be significant at nearby receptors. Mitigation can be conditioned in the form of a Construction Environmental Management Plan.
It is noted the Design and Access Statement includes proposals for a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant to heat the building. Whilst CHP plant can be beneficial in terms of providing efficient and low carbon heating systems, they can have an impact on local air quality if not correctly specified. Discussions have taken place with the applicant and it has been confirmed the CHP will be gas powered and meet emission limits compliant with the IAQM Principles of Good Design.
Noise
The application is supported by an updated noise and vibration assessment given its proximity to existing employment uses and busy transport corridor. In addition to noise from the road, metro and industrial sources there is potential for noise from fixed plant and equipment associated with the proposed commercial units to impact on new residential uses and those across the road.
The Noise report suggests that should the roof be used as a communal garden area noise levels would be reasonable according to WHO guidance.
Road Traffic Noise is assessed in accordance with BS8233:2014 (Guidance on Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction from Buildings) and ProPG guidance. This is the dominant noise source for properties facing the A57 and mitigation is required in the form of acoustic glazing and mechanical ventilation. A vibration assessment undertaken with respect to the Metrolink tram movements has determined the closest apartments will require mitigation to ensure vibration does not cause adverse reaction from future occupants. The final vibration mitigation scheme is greatly affected by the choice of materials / building frame and whilst it is accepted in principle that vibration can be mitigated the final scheme will need to be agreed when the design is finalised.
Industrial and commercial noise affecting other facades has been assessed in accordance with BS4142:2014 (Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound) albeit in the context of the application the report suggests this standard is not directly applicable. However, the Local Planning Authority (LPA) do consider this appropriate for rating the impact of industrial noise due to the potential intrusive character of the noise. Furthermore, future occupants if disturbed may complain about the existing industry and thereby create a regulatory burden on the operations, or inhibit future expansion plans. This is contrary to NPPG paragraph 182 with respect to the agent of change being required to incorporate suitable mitigation to ensure the two uses can co-exist.
The acoustic report has determined a rating level of 62-63 dB to be used to design appropriate mitigation. The proximity of the existing Council Waste Depot (Turnpike Depot) would raise concerns if the residential uses were to be on the western boundary. However, the less sensitive uses (commercial / offices) are proposed for this side of the building.
Page 137
$i5yss5vd.docx A noise and vibration mitigation strategy including ventilation requirements for habitable rooms has been proposed in the report including acoustic glazing and mechanical ventilation. The strategy includes minimum acoustic requirements for other elements of the building envelope are specified including walls, roofs and separating floors between residential and commercial uses. The strategy proposes enhanced mechanical ventilation provided to units facing Eccles New Road so windows are not required to be opened. At all other times the ventilation system will be capable of providing enhanced background and purge ventilation. These measures will be secured via condition.
It is not possible to provide a detailed specification for external plant and equipment as the details are not yet known. However design noise limits are proposed to ensure that noise limits are not exceeded within the new residential units.
Land Contamination
The desk study report and intrusive investigation (1 and 2 above) submitted with the application have assessed the potential for a pollution linkage between any identified source and a receptor. The assessment identified a number of contaminants on the site including lead, mercury, arsenic, hydrocarbon contamination and asbestos containing materials. Whilst some contaminants were present above environmental quality standards, the risk to groundwater has been eliminated due to the absence of a water extraction point and the underlying impermeable geology. Ground gas monitoring has been completed (updated since the 2017 application) and concludes the site is characterised as CS2, meaning that gas protection measures will be required. The required remediation would be the subject of condition on any grant of consent.
Residential Amenity
The neighbouring properties to the east, west and south are commercial units so are not a sensitive end uses and in the main do not have windows facing the site. These properties are situated a sufficient distance from the proposed development (approximately 17m at the closest point) and of a scale that would not introduce harm to the future occupiers of the building in terms of dominance. With regards to overshadowing, the relationship and distance from the residential properties to the north is such that the proposal would not introduce significant harm.
The only building with windows directly facing the site (on the southern side of Eccles New Road) is the Golf Centre, which is situated approximately 17m from the boundary. These windows are not translucent and are likely to serve a storage area or ancillary office. This relationship is considered to be acceptable. The residential properties to the north are a sufficient distance away to avoid any harm in terms of overlooking being introduced.
Drainage
The site is in Flood Zone 1 and is less than 1ha so a flood risk assessment is not required. The development is a brownfield site in the Core Conurbation and Salford North West Critical Drainage Area. The SFRA user guide requires a reduction in surface water runoff to 50% of the existing (or to greenfield runoff, whichever is greater). A condition concerning the submission of a detailed drainage strategy would be attached to the grant of any consent.
Planning Obligations
Saved UDP Policy DEV5 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. The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) expands on policy DEV5 and outlines the appropriate thresholds for requesting contributions.
New housing development will be required to contribute to a balanced mix of dwellings within the local area in terms of tenure and affordability. The SPD details in what areas of the City contributions toward affordable
Page 138
$i5yss5vd.docx housing can be requested. The borough has been divided into five residential value areas. This site is located within the low value area, which does not trigger a requirement for an affordable housing contribution.
The proposal would introduce a number of people to the immediate area that would require access to the metro link, bus stops and so on. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the development to contribute towards public realm improvements. Public realm enhancements would also contribute towards the sustainability credentials of the development. The following projects could potentially benefit from the contribution:
James Corbett Road/ Daniel Adamson Road protected cycleways and connection to MediaCityUK Eccles New Road cycleway improvements and access to Metrolink Langworthy Road/ Eccles New Road access improvements
Whilst the proposed level of parking is considered acceptable, the developer has agreed to pay £9,000 to allow a parking review to be undertaken after the development is occupied. If necessary, the contribution will also facilitate interventions (permits/ further restrictions) to be introduced.
Contributions are required towards open space and public realm improvements in accordance with the Planning Obligations SPD. However, The applicant has explained that, for reasons of scheme viability, the development cannot support the level of contribution considered by the City Council as appropriate to mitigate its impacts. The applicant has submitted a viability appraisal in support of their position.
Following a review of the appraisal by the Council’s Estates team, it has been accepted that any contribution would undermine the delivery of the development and so no contribution is being sought other than the £9,000 referenced above. However, it has been agreed that a clawback mechanism be included in the Section 106 agreement. This will secure further contributions from the applicant, up to a policy compliant maximum, should the viability of the development improve in the future.
Recommendation
That planning permission be granted subject to the following planning conditions and that:
I. 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:
a. A contribution of £9,000 to facilitate a parking review to be undertaken after the development is occupied. If necessary, the contribution will also facilitate interventions (permits/ further restrictions) to be introduced; and, b. Clawback of the public realm and open space obligation if the development is found to be viable once construction is nearly complete.
II. That the applicant be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions stated below, on completion of such legal agreement;
III. That 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:
*100 Rev B Site Location Plan
Page 139
$i5yss5vd.docx 2000 P03 GA Plans - Ground Floor 2001 P02 GA Plans - First Floor 2002 P02 GA Plans - Second Floor 2003 P02 GA Plans - Third Floor 2004 P02 GA Plans - Fourth Floor 2005 P02 GA Plans - Fifth Floor 2006 P02 GA Plans - Sixth Floor 2007 P02 GA Plans - Seventh Floor 2008 P02 GA Plans - Eighth Floor 2050 Office Block Plans 2051 Office Block Elevations 3000 P01 GA Elevations 3050 P01 Proposed Street Scenes 3060 Proposed Section & Elevation Fenestration 3061 Proposed Boundary Wall and Kerb Section
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
3. The residential (C3) building shall not be occupied until the office (B1) building has been fully constructed and completed to allow occupancy.
Reason: To ensure that the replacement employment use is available on site prior to the residential development first being occupied in accordance with policy E5 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
4. Notwithstanding any description of materials in the application no above ground construction works shall take place until drawings of the window details at a scale of 1:20, fenestration specification and full details (including samples where appropriate) of the materials to be used externally on the building(s) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A sample panel of the materials, the size of which shall first be agreed in writing by the local planning authority, shall be erected on site prior to any discharge application relating to this condition being submitted and shall be available for inspection by the local planning authority. The sample panel shall include full details of the colour, type and design of jointing/coursing materials. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved materials.
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.
5. 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 (but not limited to) the following:
i. Hard surfaced areas (including materials); ii. Boundary treatments (including the brick security wall to the southern boundary); iii. Kurbing to southern boundary; iv. External lighting; v. Proposed levels; vi. Planting plans, specifications and schedules (including planting size, species and numbers/densities); vii. Construction, soil/growing medium, water provision and plant species, with consideration given to SuDS attenuation potential, shade provision and wind shelter concerning the roof gardens; viii. Earthworks; and, ix. Scheme for implementation
Page 140
$i5yss5vd.docx (b) The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and scheme for 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, DES9 and DES10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
6. a) Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a feasibility study fully exploring the practicality of planting trees along Falcon Close has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
b) If the feasibility study concludes that tree planting is possible along Falcon Close full details of the following shall also be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, prior to first occupation:
i. Planting plans, specifications and schedules (including planting size, species and numbers/densities); ii. Earthworks; and, iii. Scheme for implementation
(c) The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and scheme for implementation or within 18 months of first occupation of the development hereby permitted, whichever is the later.
(d) 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, DES9 and DES10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
7. Prior to first occupation, the balustrade to the southern side of the garden platform/podium shall be glazed for the full width of the structure with obscure glass to at least level 3 obscurity and thereafter retained as such.
Reason: In the interest of residential amenity in accordance with Policy DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
8. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, the development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a scheme (including a protocol) detailing how the security of the site would be managed during occupation (including receiving deliveries) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Each building shall have its own protocol to ensure the individual needs of each use are fully addressed and that those occupying the building understand what is expected of them. The approved security measures shall be in place prior to the first occupation of both uses and the protocols in place within two months of occupation.
Page 141
$i5yss5vd.docx Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and security in accordance with Policies DES7 and DES10 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
9. 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 scheme shall include the recommendations of the LMX210 Rev B Sustainable Drainage Strategy report and infiltration rates must be determined to enable a sustainable surface water strategy to be fully explored.
Surface water discharge rate shall be restricted to 50% of the existing discharge rate or to greenfield runoff, whichever is greater.
Foul and surface water shall be drained on separate systems.
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; NPPF, Water Framework Directive and the NW River Basin Management Plan The national Planning Practice Guidance and the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) Manchester, Salford, Trafford Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) (2011) and associated technical guidance Environment Agency Pollution Prevention Guidelines (now withdrawn) 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.
10. Prior to first occupation a minimum of two parking spaces shall be supplied with electric vehicle charging points and retained and maintained as such thereafter. The charging point shall be capable of Type 2 "Fast" charging, and wired to a dedicated 30A spur to provide 7KV charging capacity.
Reason: In accordance with paragraph 35 and 124 of the NPPF, to encourage the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles and ensure the development is sustainable. To safeguard residential amenity, public health and quality of life.
11. Prior to installation the specification and details of the gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) plant shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. CHP plant shall be designed to meet a minimum emissions standard of;
Spark ignition engine: 250 mg NOx/Nm3 Compression ignition engine: 50mg NOx/Nm3 Gas turbine: 50 mg NOx/Nm3
The approved CHP plant shall be installed prior to first occupation and retained and maintained thereafter.
Reason: In accordance with paragraph 110, 170 and 181 of the NPPF, to encourage the uptake of ultra- low emission vehicles and ensure the development is sustainable. To safeguard residential amenity, public health and quality of life.
Page 142
$i5yss5vd.docx 12. No development shall take place, including any works of excavation or demolition, until a Construction Method Statement including detailed method of construction and risk assessments 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:
a) 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; b) safe method of working adjacent to the Metrolink Hazard Zone; c) the retention of 24hr unhindered access to the trackside equipment cabinets and chambers for the low voltage power, signalling and communications cables for Metrolink both during construction and once operational; d) construction and demolition methods to be used; including the use of cranes (which must not over sail the tramway); e) the spaces for and management of the parking of site operatives and visitors vehicles; f) the loading, unloading, storage and management of plant and materials (including loading and unloading activities); g) full details of the erection and maintenance of security hoardings including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate, at a minimum distance of 1.5m from the kerb which demarcates the tramway path, unless otherwise agreed with Transport for Greater Manchester; h) measures to prevent the deposition of dirt on the public highway; i) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition/construction; j) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition/construction works; k) measures to minimise disturbance to any neighbouring occupiers from noise and vibration, including from any piling activity; l) measures to prevent the pollution of watercourses; m) 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 n) 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 and highway safety and in the interest of meeting the safety requirements of working above and adjacent to the Metrolink system in accordance with policies A8, 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.
13. Prior to above ground development commencing, full details of a mitigation scheme for vibration and structure borne noise shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Panning Authority. The scheme shall ensure that vibration levels within all residential apartments meet the following criteria as determined using BS6472-1:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings:
Page 143
$i5yss5vd.docx Time Period Vibration limit Daytime 16h < 0.4 m.s1.75 Night-Time 8h <0.2 m.s1.75
The development shall then be undertaken in strict accordance with the agreed scheme.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with policy EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
14. Prior to above ground development commencing, a detailed noise mitigation scheme for all residential apartments shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall identify the building envelope construction, glazing specification and ventilation scheme for each apartment including details of the sound reduction value for each element of the building envelope. The scheme shall also include the detailed specification for all floors and walls separating residential and commercial uses to achieve an airborne sound insulation of 62 dB DnTw / 50dB DnTw + CTR in accordance with the submitted Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment, July 2018, Ref: AA0036.1, Azymouth.
The approved mitigation scheme shall be implemented prior to first occupation and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with policy EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
15. Prior to first occupation of the residential units, a Site Completion Report confirming that all necessary noise attenuation measures identified in the assessment have been installed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with policy EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
16. Prior to the first occupation of B1 (office) units, the applicant shall agree with the Local Planning Authority opening hours (including delivery and collection hours) of each unit. Each unit shall operate in accordance with the agreed operating hours.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity in accordance with policies EN17 of the Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
17. Prior to the installation of any external plant or equipment, the applicant shall submit an assessment of the noise from the plant and equipment to demonstrate the rating level (LAeq,T) from such equipment associated with the development, when operating simultaneously, shall not exceed the typical background noise level (LA90,T) by more than -5 dB at any time when measured at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive premises. Noise measurements and assessments shall be carried out according to BS 4142:2014 "Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound". ‘T’ refers to any 1 hour period between 07.00hrs and 23.00hrs and any 15 minute period between 23.00hrs and 07.00hrs.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of residents in accordance with policy EN 17 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
18. 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.
Page 144
$i5yss5vd.docx 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.
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.
19. Pursuant to condition 18 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.
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.
20. a) Notwithstanding the details shown on the drawings hereby approved, no above ground construction works shall take place until details of secure cycle and motorcycle parking have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include information that identifies that the cycle parking spaces proposed can be accommodated and easily and safely accessed. The approved cycle and motorcycle parking shall be implemented and made available for its intended use prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved and shall be retained thereafter.
b) The showers and changing facilities shown on plan referenced 2050 Office Block Plans, hereby approved, shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development and 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.
21. a) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, the applicant shall submit to and have approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a Travel Information Pack and details of the Travel Plan Co-ordinator for the development. This pack shall detail all modes of sustainable transport available to the site including cycleway(s), footways, public transport and any other local options as well as full incentives available to staff/residents. The agreed pack shall be issued to all staff/residents on appointment to work/occupation of building at the development hereby permitted.
b) Within 6 months of occupation of the residential element hereby approved (or alternative timeframe which 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, TP budget details and real incentives and measures to encourage use of non-car modes of travel.
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.
22. Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, no above ground construction works shall take place until a Car Park Management Plan (CPMP) has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The document shall set out how the use of the car park will be controlled and in particular how visitors will access the site and where they will park. The approved CPMP shall be implemented on first occupation of the development and retained in practice thereafter.
Reason: To ensure the free and safe use of the highway in accordance with policy A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Page 145
$i5yss5vd.docx 23. Prior to first occupation a Traffic Management Scheme to ensure the safety of pedestrians and road users by mitigating the impact of potential on-street parking on Falcon Close shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved works shall be fully implemented prior to first occupation.
Reason: To ensure the free and safe use of the highway in accordance with policies A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
24. Prior to first occupation, full details of the closing off and making good all existing redundant accesses as continuous footway, resurfacing of Falcon Close carriageway and footway improvements and installing tactile paving at junctions / crossing points shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved works shall be completed prior to first occupation.
Reason: To ensure the free and safe use of the highway in accordance with the policy A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
25. Notwithstanding any references to service management within the application, no above ground construction works shall take place until a Waste Management Plan (WMP) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The WMP shall include, but not limited to, the following:
How bins will be moved from the identified bin stores to the highway; Where they will be temporarily located (a ‘holding area’) immediately prior to and post refuse collection; and Where the refuse vehicles will park to collect bins from the identified holding areas.
The approved WMP shall be implemented on first occupation and adhered to for the life of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the free and safe use of the highway in accordance with policy A8 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.
Notes to 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. Submitted plans and design and access statement illustrate tree planting to the Eccles New Road frontage, the void between residential block and office block, first floor 'amenity deck' and 7th floor roof garden. The inclusion of trees, especially to Eccles New Road, is important to soften the building mass, create an improved street scene, improve urban biodiversity, provide cooling and shade, reduce surface water run-off and improve air quality. Careful species selection is required to ensure the longevity of the proposed trees, especially those proposed to the north of the building which are proposed within a restricted space and will be shaded for large parts of the day.
Page 146
$i5yss5vd.docx 4. In relation to condition 19, four motorcycle spaces are required.
Page 147
$i5yss5vd.docx This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6
PART 1 (OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC DIRECTOR PLACE
TO THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL ON 3rd October 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 149
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 150 DELEGATED DECISIONS BY DCM
APPLICATION No: 19/74083/ART16 DATE VALID: 27.08.2019
APPLICANT:Emily Booth
LOCATION: Article 16 NCP Car Park Manchester Central Lower Mosley Street Manchester M2 3GX
PROPOSAL: Article 16 consultation received from Manchester Council (Application number CDN/19/0684) application to discharge conditions 7 (Construction management plan) 8 (site investigation) 9 (materials) 10 (Surface water drainage) 11 (access for metrolink infrastructure) 12 (fire strategy) 13 (Electromagnetic Control) 14 (earthling electrode) 15 (vehicle access) 18 (plant noise) 19 (lighting scheme) 20 (piling) and 21 (fumes) attached to planning permission reference number 118869/VO/2018.
DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73999/DISCON DATE VALID: 09.08.2019 WARD: Barton APPLICANT:Mr John Smith
LOCATION: 631 Liverpool Road Eccles M30 7BY
PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of compliance of condition 6 (glazing) attached to planning permission 18/72620/FUL.
DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 September 2019 ______
Page 151 APPLICATION No: 19/73503/OUT DATE VALID: 08.06.2019 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr S Quinn And Ellenbrook LOCATION: Land To The South West Of 17 Queen Anne Drive Worsley M28 1ZF
PROPOSAL: Outline planning application will all matters reserved for the erection of two dwellings and erection of a detached garage for 17 St Anne's Drive, with a shared access way.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73889/HH DATE VALID: 20.07.2019 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mrs Michelle Buckley And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 57 Vicars Hall Gardens Worsley M28 1HW
PROPOSAL: Erection of first floor front/side extension
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73974/HH DATE VALID: 03.08.2019 WARD: Boothstown APPLICANT:Mr Eamon Kelly And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 8 The Chanters Worsley M28 7XL
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing rear extension and erection of new single storey rear extension.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 September 2019 ______
Page 152 APPLICATION No: 19/73976/HH DATE VALID: 05.08.2019 WARD: Boot hstown APPLICANT:Mr Dean Crawford And Ellenbrook LOCATION: 2 Ashford Avenue Worsley M28 1JJ
PROPOSAL: Demolition of conservatory and erection single storey rear extension with velux windows.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73708/HH DATE VALID: 09.07.2019 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:Mrs Golovenshits
LOCATION: 7 Yew Street Salford M7 2HL
PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey side extension, part single/part two storey rear extension, dormer to the side.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 18 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73854/FUL DATE VALID: 13.07.2019 WARD: Broughton APPLICANT:Mr Shah
LOCATION: 12 Grassfield Avenue Salford M7 1HW
PROPOSAL: Change of Use of dwelling house to 3no self-contained flats, together with demolition of existing garage
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 September 2019 ______
Page 153 APPLICATION No: 19/73862/FUL DATE VALID: 17.07.2019 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Libra Speciality Chemicals Ltd
LOCATION: Libra Chemicals Brinell Drive Irlam M44 5LF
PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) attached to planning permission 18/72388/FUL
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73992/HH DATE VALID: 26.07.2019 WARD: Cadishead APPLICANT:Mr Tony Adams
LOCATION: 4 Howarth Drive Irlam M44 6ZB
PROPOSAL: Retrospective planning application for the demolition of existing conservatory and erection of a single storey rear extension
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73761/HH DATE VALID: 29.07.2019 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr Cristopher Ambler
LOCATION: 5 Springwood Avenue Pendlebury Swinton M27 5EA
PROPOSAL: Partial demolition of existing extension and erection of single storey rear/side extension.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 September 2019 ______
Page 154 APPLICATION No: 19/73859/HH DATE VALID: 16.07.2019 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr Kirkham
LOCATION: 21 Otranto Avenue Salford M6 8LN
PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side extension
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 9 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73899/HH DATE VALID: 22.07.2019 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr Mark Law
LOCATION: 83 Moorfield Road Salford M6 7GD
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing extension and erection of single storey rear extension
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 September 2019 ______
APPLICA TION No: 19/73977/HH DATE VALID: 31.07.2019 WARD: Claremont APPLICANT:Mr I Anwer
LOCATION: 49 Denstone Road Salford M6 7ER
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing garage and erection of part single-storey and part two-storey side extension (resubmission of 19/73206/HH)
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 September 2019 ______
Page 155 APPLICATION No: 19/73500/DISCON DATE VALID: 02.05.2019 WARD: Eccles APPLICANT:Mr Christopher Govin
LOCATION: 233-235 Monton Road Eccles M30 9PS
PROPOSAL: Request for confirmation of condition 3 (extraction equipment) attached to the planning permission 18/72702/COU.
DECISION: Condition Request determined DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73900/FUL DATE VALID: 23.07.2019 WARD: Irwell APPLICANT:Mr Miles Joule Stovold Riverside
LOCATION: 18 Suffolk Street Salford M6 6DU
PROPOSAL: Change of use from C3 (residential) to C4 (Small HMO), 5 occupancies, together with a single storey side extension and loft conversion Re- submission of 19/73126/FUL
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73426/ADV DATE VALID: 23.04.2019 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Nathan Malam
LOCATION: Corner Of Radford Street And Bury New Road Salford M7 2BT
PROPOSAL: Advert application for the display of one non-illuminated free standing sign
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 September 2019 ______
Page 156 APPLICATION No: 19/73641/H H DATE VALID: 27.06.2019 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs R Manville
LOCATION: 20 Cavendish Road Salford M7 4WW
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of single storey rear extension, extension of patio area.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73757/FUL DATE VALID: 18.07.2019 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Taylor
LOCATION: 25A New Hall Road Salford M7 4LA
PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey side extension
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73786/HH DATE VALID: 20.07.2019 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Lobenstein
LOCATION: 5 Brantwood Road Salford M7 4EN
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing extension, two storey side and rear, single storey rear extension, loft conversion with dormer to the rear, porch to the front, boundary fence and decking area to the rear.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 18 September 2019 ______
Page 157 APPLICATION No: 19/73856/FUL DATE VALID: 13.07.2019 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Belmont Property Investments Ltd
LOCATION: Garages North East Healey Close Blackfield Lane Salford M7 3PQ
PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) attached to planning permission 18/72012/FUL
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73879/HH DATE VALID: 01.08.2019 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr Giddon Stemmer
LOCATION: 4 Worthington Drive Salford M7 4HG
PROPOSAL: Internal alterations to second floor level with balcony to the rear.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 18 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73867/CLUDP DATE VALID: 30.07.2019 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:P & M J WRIGHT (HOLDINGS) LTD C/O S.KERSHAW & SONS
LOCATION: 6 Oakham Mews Salford M7 4JP
PROPOSAL: Certificate of lawfulness for the conversion of garage space to habitable room
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 September 2019 ______
Page 158 APPLICATION No: 19/73966/PDE DATE VALID: 20.08.2019 WARD: Kersal APPLICANT:Mr A Halpern
LOCATION: 25 Waterpark Road Salford M7 4FT
PROPOSAL: Single storey extension to rear
DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73092/FUL DATE VALID: 27.03.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Abu M Sehri
LOCATION: Unit 3 Zenith 365 Chapel Street Salford M3 5JT
PROPOSAL: Sub divide existing commercial unit A1 (shop) to create 3no. units use class (A1) shop, A2 (financial and professional) and A5 (hot food takeaway), together with additional installation of a disabled access ramp
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73892/FUL DATE VALID: 20.07.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Get Living
LOCATION: Unit 2 Block F1 Middlewood Locks Salford
PROPOSAL: Change of Use of Unit 2 Block F1, Middlewood Locks to Use Class A3 (restaurants and cafes) and A4 (drinking establishment) including associated internal works, the provision of outdoor seating and alterations to the elevations
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 17 September 2019 ______
Page 159 APPLICATION No: 19/73914/FUL DATE VALID: 25.07.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Daniel Fan
LOCATION: 257 Ordsall Lane Salford M5 3WH
PROPOSAL: Formation of new vehicular access from Ordsall Lane (A5066). Removal of existing hard and soft landscaping, obelisks and trees to Pedestrian walkway. Proposed landscape scheme to include earthworks, new road and footways, soft landscaping and trees.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/74070/NMA DATE VALID: 24.08.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:c/o Agent
LOCATION: Lowry Hotel 50 Dearmans Place Salford M3 5LH
PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission 18/72681/FUL for fire doors.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/74112/NMA DATE VALID: 05.09.2019 WARD: Ordsall APPLICANT:Mr Patrick McGrath
LOCATION: Unit E Houston Park Montford Street Salford M502RP
PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission 19/73083/FUL for increase of access from 6.55m to 10.57m and installation of designated pedestrian footpath within the site boundary.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 13 September 2019 ______
Page 160 APPLICATION No: 19/73878/HH DATE VALID: 18.07.2019 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT:Mr Vincent Michael South
LOCATION: 16 Thorn Road Swinton M27 5GT
PROPOSAL: Erection of a 2 storey side and single storey rear extension
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/7 3987/PDE DATE VALID: 05.08.2019 WARD: Swinton APPLICANT: South
LOCATION: 73 Folly Lane Swinton M27 0DB
PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension
DECISION: No Objections DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73482/TPO DATE VALID: 30.04.2019 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Mr Paul Scott And Seedley LOCATION: Oaklands Hospital 19 Lancaster Road Salford M6 8AQ
PROPOSAL: 1. Remove 1x sub-dominant sucker growth back to the root collar (indicated on the attached pictures with a red arrow); root-prune the sucker growth back to the site boundary. 2. Crown lift to 4m above existing ground levels (annual removal of epicormic) one lime tree (T1).
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
Page 161 APPLICATION No: 19/73883/HH DATE VALID: 19.07.2019 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Mrs J LLOYD And Seedley LOCATION: 25 Lancaster Road Salford M6 8AQ
PROPOSAL: Loft conversion with hip to gable roof conversion with raising of the ridge height.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73929/HH DATE VALID: 30.07.2019 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs DALLI And Seedley LOCATION: 8 Peveril Road Salford M5 5LN
PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side and single storey rear extensions
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73930/HH DATE VALID: 30.07.2019 WARD: Weaste APPLICANT:Mr S K MOHAMED And Seedley LOCATION: 12 Buile Hill Drive Salford M5 5LY
PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side and single storey rear extensions and canopy to front elevation
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 September 2019 ______
Page 162 APPLICATION No: 19/73543/REM DATE VALID: 10.05.2019 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Joe Burnett North
LOCATION: Ashtonfields Site Part Of British Coal Yard Ravenscraig Road Little Hulton Worsley M38 9PU
PROPOSAL: Reserved Matters planning application pursuant to outline planning permission 17/69776/OUT for the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for B1(b), B1(c), B2 and B8 employment units landscaping works, car parking and vehicular, pedestrian circulation and other associated works
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 19 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73606/HH DATE VALID: 19.06.2019 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mrs Alison Sherratt
LOCATION: 5 Hazelfields Worsley M28 2LS
PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey rear extension and alterations to fenestration.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73732/HH DATE VALID: 05.07.2019 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs P Anglesey
LOCATION: 14 Woodstock Drive Worsley M28 2WW
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing garage, erection of a two storey side extension, two storey front extensions and a single storey rear extension, together with elevation alterations and creation of second floor with associated roof amendments.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 18 September 2019 ______
Page 163 APPLICATION No: 19/73884/HH DATE VALID: 19.07.2019 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr s Kapur
LOCATION: 12 Granby Road Swinton M27 0EY
PROPOSAL: Erection of part single/part two storey side and rear extensions with roof, wall and window alterations to existing conservatory
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/74037/NMA DATE VALID: 17.08.2019 WARD: Worsley APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs Davison
LOCATION: 144 Chatsworth Road Swinton M28 2NT
PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission 17/70949/FUL for amendments on windows, floor areas, rooflights, height, depth and width alterations.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 18/71747/OUT DATE VALID: 01.06.2018 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Cliff Lansley South
LOCATION: Land Adjacent To The Ellesmere Walkden Road Worsley M28 7BQ
PROPOSAL: Outline planning permission for access, appearance, layout and scale (except landscaping) for erection of 10 apartments, boundary fencing and sliding gate
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
Page 164 APPLICATION No: 19/73517/ADV DATE VALID: 11.07.2019 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Bernard Ginns South
LOCATION: Ellesmere Golf Club Old Clough Lane Worsley M28 7HZ
PROPOSAL: Display of two vinyl banners
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 20 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73679/HH DATE VALID: 07.06.2019 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr Chris Taylor South
LOCATION: 10 Stafford Road Worsley M28 7HF
PROPOSAL: Construction of front and rear dormers with loft conversion, new windows to front and side, new door to the front, erection of part single/part two storey rear extension.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 18 September 2019 ______
APPLICATION No: 19/73824/CLUD DATE VALID: 19.07.2019 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr & Mrs McLellangrant South
LOCATION: 205B Old Clough Lane Worsley M28 7JB
PROPOSAL: Certificate of lawfulness for the erection of a single storey rear extension and loft conversion including internal alteration and rear dormer
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 11 September 2019 ______
Page 165 APPLICATION No: 19/74056/NMA DATE VALID: 21.08.2019 WARD: Walkden APPLICANT:Mr John Heaton South
LOCATION: 1 - 3 Memorial Road Worsley M28 3AQ
PROPOSAL: Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission 18/72836/FUL to replace the existing natural slates on the pitched roofs with a concrete interlocking tile system.
DECISION: Approve DATE DECISION ISSUED: 16 September 2019 ______
Page 166 Agenda Item 7
PART 1 (OPEN TO THE PUBLIC)
REPORT OF The Strategic Director Place
TO THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL ON 3rd October 2019
TITLE: PLANNING APPEALS
RECOMMENDATION: That the report be noted
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To set out details of appeals received and determined
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 indicated in the attached schedule.
Page 167 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY PANEL
REPORT OF NEW PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT APPEALS RECEIVED
APPLICATION No: 18/72845/FUL
APPLICATION DECISION LEVEL: Panel Decision
OFFICER Approve RECOMMEND’N:
APPEAL SITE: Land Off Hilton Lane Worsley
PROPOSAL: Erection of up to 209 dwellings, creation of open space and associated infrastructure and works
WARD: Little Hulton
APPELLANT: Bellway Homes Plc
DATE RECEIVED: 9 September 2019
Appeal received against refusal of planning permission.
The application was recommended for approval by the Planning Officer but this decision was overturned at Planning panel for the following reasons;
The proposed development would increase traffic at the already over-capacity mini-roundabout at the junction of Hilton Lane and Newearth Road. As a result of this development users of this junction would be severely inconvenienced by reason of increased queuing and delays. This negative impact is not outweighed by the benefits of the scheme and the proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.
The proposal would not improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area nor does it comply with the development plan and therefore does not comprise sustainable development. There were no amendments to the scheme, or conditions which could reasonably have been imposed, which could have made the development acceptable and it was therefore not possible to approve the application. The Local Planning Authority has therefore implemented the requirement in Paragraph 38 of the NPPF.
Page 168 Broadoak High Court Decision - Summary
Appeal A - Outline application for the erection of up to 600 dwellings, marina facilities and basin, Class A1 (retail) and Class A3 (cafe) uses, associated formal and informal green space and recreation provision, landscaping and drainage works, vehicular access, car parking, diversion and realignment of public rights of way (PRoWs W51, W71 and W163), the creation of new footpaths and connections to adjoining footpath network, the creation of an ecological mitigation area at Aviary Field including the formation of a pond and the creation of a recreation area at Aviary Field; at Land to the north and south of Worsley Road and land at Aviary Field, Broadoak, Worsley, Salford, Greater Manchester - Application ref: 13/63157/OUTEIA (as amended); and
Appeal B - Outline application for the erection of up to 165 dwelling residential scheme with associated road and utilities infrastructure, open space and other green infrastructure, hard and soft landscaping and drainage infrastructure; at Land to the south of Worsley Road, Worsley - Application ref: 17/69773/OUTEIA.
Background
Planning permission was refused by the Council’s Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel on the 7 th November 2013 in respect of Appeal A. A Public Inquiry was held in summer 2014 in respect of Appeal A. The Secretary of State (SoS) refused planning permission and dismissed the appeal, however this decision was quashed by the High Court and the decision was remitted for redetermination. The SoS confirmed that the Public Inquiry would be reopened as part of the redetermination process.
In 2017, the Appellant submitted a further application for up to 165 dwellings to the Local Planning Authority for its consideration (Appeal B). This application was also refused consent by the Council’s Planning and Transportation Regulatory Panel on the 20th July 2017 and a further appeal was submitted.
Given the common issues between the two appeals, the SoS determined that it was expedient to consider both appeals together. A conjoined Public Inquiry was held between February and March 2018. Both appeals were recovered by the SoS for his consideration. On the 12 November 2018 the SoS dismissed both appeals and planning permission was refused.
The appellant subsequently appealed the SoS decision in the High Court, the defendant being the SoS with the Council acting as 2 nd defendant. A hearing was held on 22 and 23 May 2019.
High Court Decision
The appellant challenged the approach taken in the SoS’s decision to the application of policy in the development plan within the context of national planning policy set out in the NPPF. In particular they contested that:
• The City Council’s UDP is out of date as the plan has passed its end date of 2016 without being replaced and consequently UDP policy EN2 is out of date. • The SoS’s decision failed to recognise that policy EN2 was inconsistent with the housing policies of the NPPF in particular in respect of addressing the need for a balanced supply of housing including family housing and affordable housing within the available supply, • The SoS’s assessment failed to recognise that Policy EN2 was actively preventing housing delivery.
The judge concluded that those grounds of challenge where leave had been granted to bring proceedings were dismissed. Those grounds of challenge where leave had not been granted prior to the hearing were refused.
The key points to note from the judgement are as follows:
Page 169 • A plan is not out of date simply because the plan period has expired, and the mere passage of time is not sufficient to conclude that a policy is out of date - this is particularly so for policies which seek to protect green space, heritage assets, etc.
• The judge highlighted that the appellant had been inconsistent with their approach to the 2018 NPPF. On the one hand, they argued in the High Court that the decision maker had failed to assess the proposals against the revised NPPF. In contrast, in their post-inquiry correspondence (prior to the appeal being refused) the appellant submitted that as far as the appeal proposals were concerned, the relevant provisions of the 2018 NPPF mirrored those of the 2012 NPPF.
• The consistent message from the judge is that the appellant has taken phrases from the Inspector's Report and SoS decision out of context.
Page 170